W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Proposing a new WG and appeal - Re: New Editor's draft

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:03:52 -0500
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-Id: <DEF5D8E3-56AB-4FD9-9400-3C0E8D2E82A7@w3.org>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>

On Aug 25, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> 
> A couple of things we could consider in removing activities, and shifting rules from activities to WGs.

Hi Wayne,


> 1. Currently, if Members want a WG and the Team does not agree, there is no way to initiate an AC Review of a proposed WG charter. The normal process should be to work through the team because of the impact on team resources, but if Members want a WG and the Team refuses there could be some way to appeal and if successful have an AC Review of a WG charter. (given this would likely be about Team resources a successful appeal followed by a successful AC review could lead to minimal Team resources for the WG).

> 2. Current wording for AC appeal of a Director Decision to create, modify or extend Activities requires a dissent during the review. That implies appeals happen only when the Director approves, not when the Director rejects.  When this moves to be about WG Charters instead, it should be clear that the AC can also appeal a decision to reject the WG Charter by the Director (with no requirement for dissent in the AC review in that case).


I think this intent of section 8.1.2 is to include rejections as well as approvals. All other things being equal, the fix could be as simple as changing "Working or Interest Group creation or extension" to ""Working or Interest Group Charter Proposals or Extensions."

Ian

> 
> 
> On 2014-08-14 05:16, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> There is a new 14 August editor's draft of the Process, as the first step in developing "Process2015".
>> 
>> As always it's at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html and the Mercurial changelog is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/
>> 
>> As with the current (1 August) Process, it is a single-page document.
>> 
>> The first change in this draft is to remove Activities - like Domains (which have never been mentioned in the Process) these are an internal management device, and the Advisory Board resolved a number of times since 2006 to remove them from "the next version of the Process".
>> 
>> There are still a bit of text left in chapter 5, for things that would obvioously change the normative requirements if they were simply deleted. E.g., charters don't require any review to be extended, but Activities did. I'd like to have explicit resolutions for what we do with these dangling bits.
>> 
>> I also simplified the acknowledgements section.
>> 
>> The old chapters are still in the repository. So far only acks.html, activities.html and to a lesser extent groups.html are noticeably different from the content of the single-page version, but I expect more divergence as we do more work. So at some point soon I'll update them to point to the single-page version.
>> 
>> Note that I have tried to make sure we haven't lost any #fragmentID since the 2005 Process (although the ones related to activities now point to things in the changelog).
>> 
>> There are various other changes I would like to make (largely removing things), but I'll write proposals based on specific issues. And there are outstanding issues where people wanted to add brand-new requirements. Let the games beginů
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> Chaals
>> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 18:03:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC