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: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:20:56 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <60db8b05-8189-012f-7ea4-5c5e6d3be587@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 18/12/2016 03:39, Jeff Jaffe wrote:

> it is certainly worthwhile to take this up in Process 2018
> [....]
> I think it is fine to submit this proposal to Process 2018 and if that

2018, wow. It's december 2016. Are you serious, Jeff? This precisely
fuels my other current request in the AC Forum for faster process

We are discussing a Process hole that authorized W3M to make a
unconsensual and potentially harmful decision for one of its most
successful Working Groups (precisely for the 20th birthday of CSS,
nice) and you're suggesting to have it resolved in 1.5 years from now
on average?

> AFAICT, CSS has not lost the opportunity to have that debate.
> I believe that the sentence in the charter that you are referring to is: "The CSS WG may incubate speculative new work in the WICG, and may adopt promising CSS work developed in WICG, provided that RF patent commitments are in place for such work."
> Having the statement in the Charter does not prevent CSSWG people to inform each other and debate about different choices for incubation.  Go ahead and do so! 

I don't think you understand. We wanted to discuss the opportunity
BEFORE introducing that possibility in the Charter. We feel W3M imposed
us a new working and organization scheme without a single second of
discussion about it. We feel W3M went beyond its powers doing so.
We feel that Section 7.1.2 item 2 is now *untenable* given how W3M used
and abused it, given how are held discussions with micro-groups of
influence during votes on Charters leading to very substantive changes
to Charters decided by W3M w/o AC vote. This is far too opaque, and that
opacity should go away immediately because it went beyond acceptable
limits. W3M's fault, not ours.

> Correct.  You cannot resolve the issue by defering to the charter. Which is exactly why it uses ambiguous wording.  Because you are supposed to discuss it with each other in the group.  So holding up the Charter would seem to be unnecessary.

Excerpts from Process Section 3.3:

  The Director, CEO, and COO have the role of assessing consensus
  within the Advisory Committee.
  Consensus: A substantial number of individuals in the set support the
  decision and nobody in the set registers a Formal Objection.

The "decision" was not part of the vote. 3 positive opinions: not a
substantial number. I objected. The final compromise was never
discussed in the open and it was decided by W3M alone.
It's then not a consensus. First conclusion: W3M violated the Process.
Second conclusion: the current CSS WG Charter is void.

I am ready to object to all Charters sent for review and vote until
a decision to fix 7.1.2 with either a constraint or a removal of item 2
is planified for the next 6 months, not 2018. I am not trusting W3M any
more to do the right thing based on 7.1.2 item 2.

On a more personal note, I find it devastating and heartbreaking since
I've always stated "I trust W3M to do the right thing" in the past.
Similarly, I don't think I ever heard W3M say "we screwed, sorry; let's
fix this mess together right now" and that too becomes untenable.

Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 09:21:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 18 December 2016 09:21:30 UTC