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

RE: Strategy for updating the Process

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 03:42:28 +0000
To: "singer@apple.com" <singer@apple.com>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB1114A26D14B20E3B67D119CEAE280@BY1PR02MB1114.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: singer@apple.com [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:34 AM
> To: Stephen Zilles
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Strategy for updating the Process
> 
> 
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 23:43 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > There have been two recent discussions about choosing subjects for updates
> to the W3C Process Document.
> > 1.      A discussion in the October Process Dcoument Task Force Telcon
> emphasized that first priority should be given to updates that (a) make the
> W3C more agile and (b) fix structural problems, such as the current process for
> participation by “member organization Members” (Issue 163).
> > 2.      A discussion of the process and how it is being updated at the AC Open
> Mike session at TPAC 2015 led to agreement that the process should be
> updated to simplify where possible and to fix structural problems, but it should
> not be updated just to make small improvements.
> 
> well, it wasn’t so much “small improvements” as re-wording or other editing
> that might improve clarity — but might introduce changes or errors where
> none was intended.  It’s not worth opening a section *merely* to fix its
> wording, and dangerous.  But if we’re editing a section for other reasons, of
> course we should make it as clear as possible.
[SZ] I agree that the general point was that edits (for small points) can introduce confusion and unintended changes. Separately, however, we have a number of reasonable comments, some from you,  that were deferred in creating Process 2015. Since these topics were originally raised in an AC Review and the response was defer until the next revisions, do we not have the responsibility to respond these comments; for example, cleaning up and unifying the terminology for appeals.
> 
> > The discussion further agreed that having a relatively small group propose
> what the updates should be was fine as long as the AC was given sufficient
> notice of the proposed updates and a chance to review them prior to holding a
> ballot on a Process change. (In recent history, the AC has been given two
> chances to see and comment upon the proposed updates for a Process
> revision.)
> >
> > There is, therefore, a need to prioritize the work of the Process Document
> Task Force to reflect these topics. That will be the subject of the 9 November
> Process Document Task Force Telcon.
> >
> > Steve Zilles
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

[SZ] Steve Z
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 03:43:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 6 November 2015 03:43:02 UTC