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 09:59:01 -0500
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <558f629b-07cc-40e5-fe40-a1e7f48f1bb8@w3.org>


On 12/18/2016 6:55 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 18/12/2016 11:01, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>
>> Which we can make if you can get consensus on a proposal, as noted.
> Right.
>
>> I think this overstates the case. As you suggest below, a bad judgement call on consensus is effectively a violation of the Process already. So improving the procedures used, not the rules that govern them, might well be the right solution.
> Not sure. A current hiatus occured precisely because the Process keeps
> the rules vague and relies on extra procedures and trust. That did not
> work well enough.
>
>> That doesn't follow, because the Process describes AC appeal as the error-correction mechanism.
> Sorry, I disagree. There can be an appeal when the vote is conformant to
> the Process. I don't think it was the case and I don't think the
> Process kept applying beyond that point.
>
> That said, I am not ready to call for the CSS WG Charter to be
> rescinded and submitted to vote again. But there is still a mess to
> clean, and no it's not entirely in CSS WG's hands.
>
>    - no formalized relationship between WICG and CSS WG
>    - no known constraints on incubation exit criteria from WICG
>    - "good enough" effect
>    - etc.
>
>> That seems drastic, and probably counter-productive. Although you're free to do it of course.
> We have a major issue arising from a big mistake

Imho, we have your assertion of a major issue arising from a big mistake.

I have not heard an outcry from CSS, and as I said in a companion email, 
if they were to take a position on this issue - that this causes them 
harm, or that they want a new Charter, that would be very impactful.

>   and the suggestion is
> to solve the issue in 2018 and let the CSS WG deal 'a posteriori' with
> a decision never discussed. You said "counter-productive"?
>
>> I generally trust that people in W3C - all across the ecosystem - try to do the right thing. And that from time to time they'll get it wrong. Indeed, that's what I do. Having people keep watch for, and try to correct problems is important. Personally, I also prefer to look for a simple solution. Part of that has resulted in me working on the Process for a few years, trying to simplify and modernise it - and alongside that, trying to promote better practice. My long experience has been that the Process was often updated attempting to "quickly" resolve something perceived as a problem, and that it often turned out we should have been looking at our practices instead, because we made the Process over-complicated, too fragile, and didn't solve the underlying problem well.
> Let's summarize:
>
> - 7.1.2 is tailored for technical documents, not Charters.
> - 7.1.2 is tailored for technical documents, not Process.
> - 7.1.2 item 2 gives too much latitude to W3M for very substantive
>    changes.
> - 7.1.2 item 2 was abused.
> - Side discussions during Votes are unacceptable.

I strongly disagree with this last statement.  I believe that it would 
cause irreparable harm to outlaw side discussions.

To Chaals' point, there is tremendous value in having discussions which 
involve everyone.  It doesn't always work - our efforts to get a 
consensus on an EME Covenant 10 months ago failed despite an invitation 
to all.  But many of the discussions should be totally open.

But there are also situations where unless there are side discussions to 
bring parties closer; if there are only large, minuted discussions, that 
it can be harder to move people to consensus.

>
> I am going to propose a revamp of this section in the coming days,
> modulo Christmas disruptions of course.

Thank you.

>
> </Daniel>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 14:59:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 18 December 2016 14:59:10 UTC