W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:41:35 -0500
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <7fef938c-b3bc-e23f-e0cc-8c1656290910@w3.org>


On 12/16/2016 1:54 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:42 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/12/2016 18:24, David Singer wrote:
>>
>>> I assume (until we cut over to GitHub) you should raise an Issue.
>> Done; issue 176.
> thx
>
>>> do you have a pointer?  it’s nice to have a “test case” or example
>> Last CSS WG charter. Optional incubation was added based only on 3+1
>> votes to the Charter w/o discussion in the WG itself. Hardly a
>> consensus, and hardly AC agreement. I don't disagree with the outcome
>> but the way it happened is absolutely not normal, nor in the spirit
>> of our Process.
> Yes, I get it.  After Charter review, there is typically a discussion with those objecting (formally or not), and then the result is sometimes approved without being exposed again to either the WG or AC.
>
> I am not sure how best to handle this, but it worries me.

W3M's guideline is to send it back to the AC when changes are made that 
are substantive (which we interpret traditionally to mean that we 
believe that they would effect a reviewer's review).  This is a judgment 
call.

I'm interested in whether people think that this is a reasonable guideline.

Assuming it is a reasonable guideline, then there is the reality that it 
is possible to make an incorrect judgment in some case.

>
> Dave Singer
>
> singer@mac.com
>
>
Received on Friday, 16 December 2016 19:41:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 16 December 2016 19:41:48 UTC