W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Some templates started [Was: Missing op agreement warning]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:14:24 -0600
Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CD6E772D-DD4D-4D80-93FC-24C5B185227F@w3.org>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>

On 16 Jan 2013, at 2:11 PM, Young, Milan wrote:

> 
> 
>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 1:54 PM, Young, Milan wrote:
>> 
>>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>>>> On 7 Jan 2013, at 2:13 PM, Young, Milan wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>>>>>> Note: By design, Community Groups have few process requirements.
>>>>>> This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its
>>>>>> decision process,  and as a result, there is limited accountability
>>>>>> in how the Chair reaches decisions. The Community Group process
>>>>>> affords greater protections  to those groups that document their decision
>> processes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [Milan] A couple suggested edits:
>>>>> * Delete your first sentence
>>>> 
>>>> Why? I think the second sentence makes less sense without the context.
>>>> 
>>>> One could add context back this way:
>>>> 
>>>>  Note: This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its
>>>> decision process, and because of the lightweight CG process, there is
>>>> limited accountability in how the Chair reaches decisions.
>>> [Milan] Replace "Note" with "Warning", and I'll support this.
>> 
>> How about "Caution"?
> [Milan] Agreed.

Cool! :)


>>>>> * Replace "there is limited accountability in how the Chair reaches
>>>> decisions" with "the Chair(s) have no obligation to consider the
>>>> opinion of the members or maintain commitments."
>>>> 
>>>> Those are overly sweeping statements. There are, for example,
>>>> licensing commitments over which the Chair has no say.
>>> [Milan] How about: "the Chair(s) have no obligation to consider the opinion
>> of the members or maintain commitments outside those specifically required
>> by the <link>CG process</link>."
>> 
>> I still believe that is too broad.
> [Milan] Too broad in its emotional response, or too broad in the scope of what is written?

Both. But my comment was mostly about the latter.

> 
> 
>>>> I prefer my version.
>>> [Milan] My first priority is to alert potential participants to the pitfalls which
>> may lie ahead.  I'd prefer this would not cause undue embarrassment to the
>> W3C or the host CG, but I'm not willing to compromise on the first priority.
>>> 
>>> I'm getting the sense that you have a different first priority.  If you don't
>> agree with my counter-proposal, perhaps it would make sense to take a step
>> back and first agree on the priorities before proposing more copy.
>> 
>> As I said, my first priority is really the chair selection algorithm. After that, I
>> think this language can be useful, and I support the goal of alerting. It is also
>> my goals to raise awareness while encouraging participation.
> 
> [Milan] I understand you are trying to balance the severity of the text against other corrective measures.  But I think you are forgetting about the balance between the severity of the text and the simplicity of the solution.  Just adopt a process agreement, and the problem goes away!  

A process agreement is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for success. It's just a good idea for a lot of reasons.

> The way the current CG process is written, a chair doesn't even need radification from the group (or the other chair) to adopt the agreement.  Once in place a respectful chair will hopefully validate with the group, but if they are not inclined to take that step, things would have soon gone badly for the group anyway. 

Ian


> 
> 
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ian
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A quick context reminder here: this text is a small patch. The
>>>>>> primary change we plan to make regarding accountability (as
>>>>>> discussed in November [1]) is around Chair selection.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [Milan] A small patch can still deliver a lot of information if it
>>>>> cuts the fluff
>>>> and gets to the point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If groups find the language objectionable (which I hope they will),
>>>>> they have
>>>> an easy solution: adopt an op agreement.  They can choose from the
>>>> present menu or cut/paste from another group.  We can give advanced
>>>> notice to existing groups so they can avoid the warning appearing on their
>> homepage.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
>>>> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
>> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 21:14:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2013 21:14:27 GMT