Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]

OK, Ian,
I think the third paragraph of 6.2.6 does allow what is desired in the closing of Issue 83. The, "e.g.", however, does not suggest that a WG can add an extra step, such as a "Final Call" step. Even tho we agreed to not make normative change outside Chapter 7, adding another example in that "e.g." would seem to be only editorial so we might be able to do that within our rules of procedure.
Steve Z

Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T


-----Original message-----
From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Cc: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 14:56:03 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]


On Feb 17, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:

> Ian,
> The text was added in Chapter 7 because it is not in the chapter in which charters are discussed

Here is what 6.2.6 says [1]:

 "An Interest Group charter MAY include provisions regarding participation, including specifying that the only requirement for participation (by anyone) in the Interest Group is subscription to the Interest Group mailing list. This type of Interest Group MAY have public participants.

A charter MAY include additional voting procedures, but those procedures MUST NOT conflict with the voting requirements of the Process Document.

A charter MAY include provisions other than those required by this document. The charter SHOULD highlight whether additional provisions impose constraints beyond those of the W3C Process Document (e.g., limits on the number of individuals in a Working Group who represent the same Member organization or group of related Members)."

It is clear that in order for Chapter 7 to be published, the entire Process Document will need to be republished. Therefore, rather than put a requirement on charters in section 7, if the above does not suffice, let's just leave an open issue on 6.2.6 to be resolved when the document as a whole is republished.

Ian


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#WGCharter



> and we agreed to limit our changes to Chapter 7 in this iteration. Were this not the case we could indeed drop the text you are concerned about, but it must stay given our limitation.
>
> Steve Z
>
> Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> Cc: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 15:43:24 GMT+00:00
> Subject: Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]
>
>
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > Ian,
> > The intent of the text in 7.1 is to specifically allow WGs to add extra process in their charter. This authorization should be in the chapter that deals with charters but cannot in this revision because we agreed to limit our updates to chapter 7. That is why the text Charles added is important as written. The intent is not,  "details can be found elsewhere".
>
> I'd be happy simply dropping the sentence then, if it's stated elsewhere in the process. Or something like:
>  "See section X for information about additional chartered processes."
>
> Ian
>
> >
> > On rereading 7.2.4, I see the point you are making and I have no strong opinion on the choice between "can" and "will".
> >
> > Apologizing because I only seem to be able to do top posts on my phone email client,
> >
> > Steve Z
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T
> >
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> > To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> > Cc: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
> > Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 00:27:07 GMT+00:00
> > Subject: Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]
> >
> >
> > On Feb 14, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ian,
> > > The text proposed  for 7.1 implements the text that closed a prior issue (83) and the changes you suggest would reopen that issue w/o adding anything.
> >
> > I believe the intent of the text is to say something like "For details about how this gets done in practice, see the charter." But when I read "additional" I don't hear "details" I hear "stuff that is at the same level as what is in this document." I'm trying to convey "details can be found elsewhere."
> >
> > > My reading of 7.2.4 is a requirement not "feasibility".
> >
> > I continue to believe the limit of our endeavor is enabling, not producing actual implementations.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > >
> > > Fir 7.4.1 I had suggested a different set of changes in an earlier message; e.g., use "Revising a CR" rather than "Revised CR" to avoid the apparent creation of a new state.
> > > Steve Z
> > >
> > > Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> > > To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
> > > Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
> > > Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2014 21:27:20 GMT+00:00
> > > Subject: Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 14, 2014, at 3:00 PM, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> > >
> > > > With one exception, I have addressed all these comments (and the exception I expect to address later tonight).
> > >
> > > Thanks, Charles. Notes inline.
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> - 7.1: "Individual Working Groups and Interest Groups may adopt
> > > >>  additional processes for developing publications, so long as they do
> > > >>  not conflict with the requirements in this chapter."
> > > >>
> > > >>  Proposed editorial change: "Different Working Groups and Interest
> > > >>  Groups typically evolve differ