+10 to Daniel here
Hickjacking the process, whatever the reason, proves always to be a very
bad idea in the long run, and I plan for a long run of this work, now here
at the W3C
As Daniel pointed out, I would STRONGLY suggest to reconsider the fact that
there is NO W3C STAFF as co-chairs
W3C has a huge value and its STAFF is definitely part of it
Furthermore, it is always a good use of our time to revise a suboptimal
charter
Cheers
Mohamed
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Daniel Glazman <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> Le 02/02/2018 à 19:10, Dave Cramer a écrit :
>
> > +1 to the candidates.
>
> Yes. I was not commenting on the candidates themselves, who all
> have full legitimacy for the role (although they are not the only
> ones).
>
> I am much, much more circumspect about the need to have a SC
> at all. I was already quite concerned about it before, but I am
> now thinking the existence of the SC is a critical issue. In
> particular, the W3C CG and BG Process explicitly reads:
>
> - (Groups) must be fair and must not unreasonably favor or
> discriminate against any group participant or their employer.
> - (Groups) must not conflict with (..) this Community and Business
> Group Process
>
> In W3C space, "must" and "must not" are strong words.
> A Steering Committee, allowed to take any action on behalf of the BG,
> *is* favoring some participants over the other ones. It is then a
> violation of the Process and this is forbidden, period. A deep
> clarification through a Charter amendment is absolutely needed.
>
> > But we really should change the charter(s) if we're going to
> > change how we organize the work.
>
> The fact the BG violates so blatantly its own Charter or its Process
> on multiple counts, even out of good will, is a strong concern to me. I
> will carefully review the implications of a positive decision if that
> happens without Charter amendment; I'm not excluding an official
> response based on W3C Process and W3C Business Groups Process.
>
> To be even clearer, experiments and pragmatism are *always* good. I
> spent the 7.5 years of my CSS WG chairmanship calling for more
> pragmatism. But the BG gave itself an operating process. It kept it
> despite of some negative feedback on the Charter before the group
> started operating, feedback that was *exactly* in the scope of the
> current discussion. I appreciate the fact there is now a consensus to
> change it; but do it by the rules (ie. amending the Charter) or don't do
> it.
>
> I am also urging this Group to start caring more about its W3C context.
> It just cannot continue making decisions as if there were no Process or
> Charter *governing* them. Thank you.
>
> </Daniel>
>
>
>
--
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €