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

Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Resolution of Issue-154

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:03:26 -0500
Message-ID: <54D9128E.4080006@w3.org>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 2/8/2015 5:55 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> This is a call for consensus to resolve Issue-154, Should there be a 
> default confidentiality level for AC reviews?

Since this effects AC reps directly, I think it would be prudent to 
inform ac-forum about this poll so we can get input from AC reps sooner 
rather than later.  Few AC reps pay attention to the CG, so we should 
get a sense of their input earlier than when we send them a revised process.

> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154 
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154>
> Responses to this call are due by Close of Business on 16 February 
> 2014 (two weeks).

Eight days appears to be a very short two weeks.

> Please send a reply to this message (I agree, I disagree, I abstain) 
> to register your opinion. The CG rules do NOT assume that a lack of 
> reply is agreement with the proposal. (See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0160.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0163.html )
> If you wish to discuss the proposed change, please create a new thread 
> for that discussion (so that “votes” are easily separated from 
> “discussion”).
> The current (Process 2014) text for section 8.1.1 is
>         8.1.1Start of a Review Period
> Each Advisory Committee review period begins with a Call for Review 
> from the Team to the Advisory Committee. Thereview formdescribes the 
> proposal, raises attention to deadlines, estimates when the decision 
> will be available, and includes other practical information. Each 
> Member organizationMAYsend one review, whichMUSTbe returned by its 
> Advisory Committee representative.
> The TeamMUSTprovide two channels for Advisory Committee review comments:
>  1. an archivedTeam-only
>     <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#Team-only>channel; this
>     is the default channel for reviews.
>  2. an archivedMember-only
>     <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#Member-only>channel.
> ReviewersMAYsend information to either or both channels. TheyMAYalso 
> share their reviews with other Members on theAdvisory Committee 
> discussion list 
> <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#ACCommunication>.
> The proposed Resolution is:
> On list item “1.” above, eliminate, “this is the default channel for 
> reviews.”
> Add a paragraph following list item “2.” above, with the sentence, 
> “The Call for Review MUST specify which channel is the default for 
> review comments on that Call.”
> Rationale: Given there are two possible channels for review comments, 
>  a reviewer needs to know where his comments will be going by default. 
>  However, it is not necessary to specify this in the Process and it 
> suffices that the Call itself identify the default channel.
> Steve Zilles
> Chair, Process Document Task Force
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 20:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 February 2015 20:03:35 UTC