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

Re: w3process-ACTION-36: Propose new text describing the team that mentions the director, fellows, the ceo, the team, and the fact that responsibilities they have under the process may be delegated

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:25:23 +0200
Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <122E696F-966B-409B-88B2-288BA000D081@apple.com>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
In general I think I am with Chaals, but this is not a ditch to die in, especially when we don’t see details.

I slightly prefer that we only introduce people, offices, etc. that actually have process-related roles, rather than introducing the W3C overall, in the process document.

So, if the document states “Black Rod has authority for the formal opening of TPAC, knocking on the door of the main meeting room and escorting the CEO to the podium.” then Black Rod and the CEO need introducing.  And so on.  If the hosts have no role in the process, don’t introduce them.


On Oct 23, 2014, at 16:19 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> On 10/23/2014 9:59 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>> 
>> 23.10.2014, 15:32, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>:
>>> On 10/23/2014 3:29 AM, David Singer wrote:
>>>>  On Oct 22, 2014, at 18:05 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>  2. In today's discussion about the reference to Hosts, Steve said we
>>>>>>>  might not need it here because it is "somewhere".  Except that I think
>>>>>>>  that somewhere is actually here!  I think there is a consensus that it
>>>>>>>  should be somewhere.
>>>>>>  I don't believe there is a consensus. You were in favour of mentioning them (I don't really understand why) and I am not (since they play no role in the Process itself, and were *only* mentioned in this section).
>>>>>  I agree there is no consensus between you and I on this point.
>>>>  well, do you agree that if they play a role in the process, they should be mentioned, and if not, not?
>> Jeff, do you agree to this proposition?
> 
> I suppose, without being overly literal about the point.  I think that definitions that are useful for understanding the W3C Process by people outside the eclectic few who are well versed should be included.
> 
>> 
>>>>  If so, we just need to establish the role they play in the process, if any
>>> I described my rationale on last Tuesday's call.
>>> 
>>> Basically, since this is the "W3C Process Document", I feel it is
>>> sensible to define somewhere in the process document who W3C is.  It
>>> does not need to be in this section, but it should be somewhere.
>> The document describes the process that is followed by the community which is "W3C", and the roles and reciprocal obligations of Team, Members, and Group Participants, to produce the Working Groups and specifications that are "W3C".
>> 
>> The current Processvdoes not include participants in Community or Business Groups, but that's a different issue.
>> 
>> The membership agreements and hosting agreements are separate from the Process, since they are administrative details at a completely different level. And as shown by the fact that membership categories and prices change entirely independently of the Process, it seems to make sense that we maintain the separation.
>> 
>>> So the Host's role in the process is at the "meta" level, they comprise
>>> the definition of what the phrase W3C means.
>> I believe they provide part of one possible explanation. But the fact that they were and are not mentioned elsewhere in the document suggests that we don't need to describe them in relation to the Process.
>> 
>>> Without a definition of
>>> the Hosts there is no anchoring for the entire document.
>> I disagree. It is important to know who the Team is, since they have explicit roles in the document.
>> 
>> I believe that we can be reasonably clear about who the Team is without reference to the hosts. I doubt many people know, or care, what the hosts' role is and I don't see any evidence that such knowledge makes a difference to their ability to understand how W3C works in practice.
>> 
>> Compared to leaving Community Groups and Business Groups out of the Process, whether the hosts are mentioned seems trivial. Doing so therefore seems to me part of the unnecessary verbiage that makes people reluctant to read the document closely, giving rise to many legends about what people *believe* is in the Process that isn't actually there.
> 
> Comparing Hosts to BGs and CGs is a red herring.  BGs and CGs are historically not in the process because historically they didn't exist.  There has been no decision to exclude them from the process; only that we haven't gotten around to it yet.  (And I anticipate that it will also be controversial to figure out exactly what to say about them.)   The comparison also seems to suggest that if we were to take out Hosts, we might put them back in when we insert BGs and CGs.
> 
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> --
>> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 24 October 2014 08:39:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC