W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

An update on Suggested response to the Yandex "cannot iive with loosening of TAG participation requiremens"

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:32:05 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN1PR0201MB080248E441985A661A116648AEE60@BN1PR0201MB0802.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
All,
The discussion that has been going on is interesting but ti is not to the point of the "Suggested Response"

Procedurally, Process 2015 is in "Public Beta"; that is, we have a document; we are not adding new functionality; we are fixing those bugs that are necessary to fix to be able to ship the document. That means, for Process 2015, we are not re-opening the debate on the best solution for TAG participation (because that would be new functionality). Such debate is entirely appropriate for Process 2016 or beyond, but we are not there yet.

We have done a "Last Call" on a Draft Process 2015 Document. That "Last Call" had revised text for TAG participation.

The "revised text" was prepared to solve a problem that required the resignation of one TAG member when a TAG member joined an organization that already had a TAG member. This text was a compromise between the current rule that says a given organization can never have to participants on the TAG  and a potential rule that says once an individual is elected he may serve the rest of his/her two year term, even if he/she joins an organization with an existing TAG participant. This text passed a Call for Consensus in December, but not without dissent from both more extreme positions.

The next step is to respond to comments on that "Last Call" document and ask the Advisory Board to send an edited version for a final AC Review prior to the May AC meeting. The Advisory Board has the responsibility (according to the Process) of deciding what (if anything) to forward to an AC Review.

Responding to comments and "fixing the bugs" means resolving issues identified in the draft document or, when there is no simple change, postponing resolution until a future draft of the Process.

The point at issue for Process 2015 with respect to TAG participation is what do we send to the AC for a final AC Review. There are two choices:

1.      The original text that is in Process 2014, or

2.      The revised text that is currently in the Draft Process 2015 document

At least one reviewer (of the "Last Call" document) has indicated that his organization cannot live with the revised text. This reviewer was asked if there was a way, other than restructuring the TAG, that would resolve his concerns. He indicated that from his viewpoint there was no such way.

So, with respect to the TAG participation issue, there does not seem to be a simple change that fixes the problem. Recognizing that there was dissent on the revised text,  two strategies have been suggested:

1.      Simply send the Process 2015 draft (with the revised text for TAG participation, but with other bugs fixed) to the AC. If there are any formal objections then they will be handled as usual by the Director.

2.      Send the Process 2015 draft (with the revised text for TAG participation, but with other bugs fixed) to the AC, but include in the Review Ballot a separate ballot on the alternatives (the Process 2014 text and the revised text for TAG participation) that the Reviewer can separately approve, live-with or disapprove. Then, choose the alternative with the fewest objections and most support.

Deciding between these two or some other approach is up to the Advisory Board; it is not the role of the Task Force or the CG. We develop recommendations (if there is consensus to do so).

Note, that the Process does not really define rules for choosing the alternative with the fewest objections and the most support. Section 3.3 Consensus of the Process Document says, "Where unanimity is not possible, a group should strive to make consensus decisions where there is significant support and few abstentions." This lack of a clear process could lead to contention on evaluating the results of such a ballot with alternatives.

Resolving this issue for Process 2015, at its current state, does not mean that a more comprehensive discussion cannot take place in the future. The time is NOT now, however.

Steve Zilles
Chair, Process Document Task Force
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 22:32:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 14 April 2015 22:32:37 UTC