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

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

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:01:19 -0800
Message-ID: <50F8588F.3080107@linux.intel.com>
To: public-council@w3.org
I agree.  I think the last line should be deleted.

(about the alternative you offered, I don't need an alternative - just 
delete it is fine. there is already a reference to the process above it.)

On 1/17/2013 8:39 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> Comment inline.
>
> On 16 Jan 2013, at 5:45 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2013 1:44 PM, Young, Milan wrote:
>>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>>> [snip]
>>>> A process agreement is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for success.   It's just a good idea for a lot of reasons.
>>> [Milan] Agreed, but that's not the subject of this thread.  We are trying to come to resolution on the text which alerts potential participants to the potential dangers joining a CG that has no process.  Our proposals must strike a balance between:
>>>    * The potential severity of the danger.
>>>    * The likelihood of the danger (agreed chair selection mitigates this danger).
>> it isn't just chair selection, it is that the group can replace the chair any time the group wants to.
>>>    * The likelihood a potential participant would be aware of these dangers without our warning.
>>>    * The impact to the CG which has been tagged with the warning (this impact is mitigated by the ease of the solution).
>>>
>>> Any  other considerations?
>>>
>> The warning should not impose new restrictions on when the W3C can act.  (e.g. W3C saying the chair is permitted to do various bad behaviors)
>>
>> The warning should not over promise what a charter can do  (given the process says the chair can change the charter; and it is still the W3C decision to enforce it)
>>
>> The proposed ability for the group to replace the chair any time it wants to, on the other hand, doesn't depend on anyone except the group itself.
>>
>> How about:
>> "This group does not have a Charter that describes its scope, deliverables, operational rules and decision making process.  In order to enable a wide variety of styles of groups, W3C imposes relatively little structure on how the Chair manages a group (see the Process).  Without a Charter, it may be unclear how the group operates or the Chair could change how the group operates without warning.  W3C strongly encourages groups to operate under a written Charter.  However, even with a Charter, participants should be aware that the Process currently allows the Chair to change the Charters after notifying the group of the change."
> I'm fine with that text, but find the last sentence unnecessary. I would be ok with "See the process for more information about operational agreements."
>
> Ian
>
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 20:01:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 January 2013 20:01:48 GMT