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

Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:03:36 +0900
Cc: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-Id: <810D5EFB-D3BC-4C33-B449-AFAAE245EA25@rivoal.net>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>

> On Dec 17, 2016, at 04:41, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

I don't think it is reasonable. It might work out OK often enough, but submitting something for a vote, getting various people to review it and approve what they read, THEN changing the document without consulting or informing the people who have already voted is inherently problematic, and W3M is not in a good position to judge what matters to whom without actually asking. Editorial changes (typos, markup, formatting, etc) are different, but any change that affects the meaning of the charter cannot reliably be evaluated as consensual by W3M. Consensus is observed, not decreed.

At the very least, all ACs, and especially those who have already voted, should be notified of any change, and the review period should be extended to allow for a new review.

However I think we should actually send the document back for discussion and rework, with the issue identified, and possibly (but not necessarily) a suggestion on how to address it. If it is minor, it should be quick. If the group fails to resolve on anything, then it will be time for W3M to try and broker a deal, or weigh one way or another to resolve the dispute, but give us a chance first.

For example, continuing on the example of the addition of incubation in the WICG to the CSSWG charter, this could have given an opportunity to people who are pushing for incubation outside the CSSWG to tell the rest of the CSSWG what they think makes the CSSWG inappropriate for in-house incubation, which is what it had been doing so far. Maybe we would have been able to agree on some changes that would have made the CSSWG an acceptable venue for incubation for all. Maybe not. As it is, we don't know, and those who dislike external incubation get annoyed as those who ask for it every time they do, and those who ask for it get annoyed at those who push back, and we cannot really defer to the charter on this topic because it isn't actually consensual (and uses ambiguous wording to boot).

—Florian
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2016 07:04:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 17 December 2016 07:04:12 UTC