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: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:51:20 -0500
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, chaals@yandex-team.ru
Cc: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2d4c67d7-0209-b6fd-8150-775ed5ca4782@w3.org>

On 12/18/2016 4:44 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2016-12-17 09:43 +0100, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>> The member-charters-review email list was created during one set of contentious charter reviews as a mechanism to ensure that any AC rep could be kept informed of proposals to change something in response to reviews. Sadly, W3C staff seem very reluctant to stop talking to small groups, and instead use it. The latest example I can think of is the HTML Media Extensions charter, where a subset of people were lined up and offered the chance to "recant" on their objections, but as far as I know there has been no effort to hold a discussion that is open to the AC at large.
> It's also a lot of work to follow the entire discussion.  I'm
> hesitant to have a policy that expects members to follow long
> discussions.
> It's still valuable to have the discussion in place where other
> members *can* follow, and can read the archive to learn motivations,
> arguments, etc.
> I think there is value in a subgroup going off and discussing
> something, and then coming back and saying to a larger group:  "we
> have a new proposal (charter/spec/wiki/etc.) that we'd like your
> opinion on".  It doesn't require every member of the larger group to
> participate in the entire discussion.

+1.  Thanks.  And thanks again for your careful comments on the final 
version of Process 2016.

> -David
Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 14:51:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 18 December 2016 14:51:31 UTC