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

Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 09:31:13 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <0fef8af1-6e61-24f8-9fab-e7e5c7895545@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 17/12/2016 08:03, Florian Rivoal wrote:

> 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).

I concur. Again, I was in agreement with the outcome. But let me detail
a bit more what happened:

1. the new CSS WG Charter was sent to ACs for review and vote

2. an AC expressed in his vote his will to see all new CSS work
   incubated in the WICG. The phrasing did not include the word
   "potentially" so it was leaving the CSS WG as a publication
   shell.

3. going back to the results page after my earlier vote, I discovered
   that request and updated my vote to give my opinion.

4. in total, only 4 ACs (IIRC) saw that mention, that required to
   read the results page, and commented on it...

5. the Charter is approved *with* an addition of optional incubation
   in the WICG. That addition is only notified to ACs in the Charter's
   approval, and below the regular approval boilerplate (which explains
   why I did not see it at first glance). And it was approved 2 days
   before Lisbon, I was super-busy and packing for my trip, which also
   explains why I read only the boilerplate, did not scroll down and
   did not see the addition to the Charter.

6. **two** days later during CSS WG ftf in Lisbon, I almost fell down
   from my chair discovering incubation in WICG was now in the Charter
   without a single second of discussion about it inside the CSS WG or
   between ACs.

The problem is that the above ***is*** conformant to our current
Process... Section 7.1.2 item 3 clearly states that a Charter can be
approved with substantive changes integrated. I am saying the change
detailed above is far too "substantive" and should have fallen into
7.1.2 item 3's basket. W3M should have understood this was FAR TOO
important as a change to approve it without discussion. You quoted,
multiple times, the CSS WG as "an example of a WG that works well"
and this removed a lot of substance from the Group without any kind of
broad approval. Wow, wow, wow.

A first document was dealt with in WICG, Scroll Anchoring. For various
reasons (no wrongdoing intended), this was far from a success. Almost
no feedback, intent to ship whatsoever, no transmission from WICG to CSS
WG for REC track. Exactly what some of us were afraid to see happening.

Incubation in WICG can be useful and helpful. If we do it correctly,
establish clear rules on when and how a document is kickstarted there
and later transferred from WICG to CSS WG for REC track and more. This
never happened. How is it even possible? How did W3M let that happen?

In full theory, I should have officially appealed. Not because I
disagree with the contents of the Charter, but because of the way it was
voted and approved. As a Member, I feel W3M has gone waaaay beyond its
duties and moral obligations; I did not appeal because it would have
caused a major public crisis and I still care about the Consortium and
even more the CSS WG. But I must say such a way of handling a Charter
and considering the Membership is depressing and fuels, from my point
of view, the accusations of irrelevance. I understand precisely and
completely the strength of the words I'm using here. The heated
discussions that happened in the CSS WG in Lisbon show W3M took a
dangerous and unconsensual decision.

There is an ambiguity in our Process that lead to the aforementioned
hiatus and I do want it to be resolved. It should not happen again.
All the Review Process is, from my point of view, now questionable
and should be *urgently* cleaned up; I am not ready to keep voting on
documents that can be VERY substantially changed and approved without
any kind of discussion any more.
Oh, and the liaising between WICG and CSS WG should be specified
somewhere.

</Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2016 08:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 17 December 2016 08:31:50 UTC