W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Issue-55 [Was: Re: [minutes] 2013-11-25 Chapter 7 Revisions meeting]

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 14:17:38 +1000
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <op.w7ejvolqy3oazb@chaals.local>
Top posting for the win.

This is potentially a process issue - there is no reason the process  
cannot require that no working group meeting is scheduled in a conflicting  
time or location.

I don't think it's worth putting into the process, but I don't feel  
strongly about that opinion - if Art gets some support, I'm not going to  
fight hard against a change to make that requirement.

cheers

Chaals

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:12:44 +1000, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>  
wrote:

> Comments inline below:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Issue-55 [Was: Re: [minutes] 2013-11-25 Chapter 7 Revisions  
> meeting]
>
> On 11/27/13 6:18 AM, ext Coralie Mercier wrote:
>>    issue-55?
>>
>>    <trackbot> issue-55 -- AC Meetings should not be scheduled to
>>    overlap All WG meetings -- raised
>>
>>    SteveZ: I'd put this in the "not a process issue" category,
>>    certainly not an issue for Chapter 7
>>
>>    Ralph: I agree
>>    ... I also doubt it's a process issue.
>>    ... But the community can followup on it.
>>
>>    SteveZ: I'll notify Art.
>>
>>    Jeff: Art raised this as a W3C Process issue
>>
>>    Ralph: I recommend Steve writes to Chaals that this isn't a
>>    process issue
>
> Issue-55 cites Chapter 2 of Process-20051014 which _does_ define the  
> requirements for AC meetings so I don't understand the view that "this  
> isn't a process issue".
>
> You'll notice the "Product" for this issue is the generic "Process  
> Document" and _not_ the Chapter 7 tracker Product.
>
> SZ: You comment above is valid, the section to which you refer does  
> define rules for AC Meetings. The reason for my comment that it was not  
> a Process Issue was that we try to put into the Process only that which  
> needs to happen, primarily to insure fairness, the right to participate  
> and enable public review. This did not seem to be in that category of  
> things.  Things such as scheduling within meetings is left to the  
> meeting organizers. We generally avoid trying to micro-manage such  
> decisions.
>
> I would also note that one could achieve your result by having less time  
> for WG meetings so they did not overlap the AC Meeting times. That may  
> be counter productive.
>
> Steve
>
> -AB
>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Sunday, 1 December 2013 07:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC