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 23:10:54 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <a00ad9ac-dc81-a40c-6649-4bfcf27de4f3@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 18/12/2016 19:17, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:

>> - Side discussions during Votes are unacceptable.
> That depends on the nature of the side discussion. There are a range of side discussions that are highly inappropriate. There are others that, so long as they don't lead to a decision blindsiding the rest of the AC, seem like a reasonable preamble or accompaniment to a more open discussion.

Agreed. My words above didn't reflect my exact thoughts. I wanted to say
that side discussions cannot be the basis for substantive changes that
deeply impact the process of a Working Group unless consensus rules
quoted in my previous message are respected.

But let me play my Art Barstow here: transparency is best. Excerpt from
the CSS WG Charter approval announcement:

  3 reviewers recommended that speculative new work start in the Web
  Incubator Community Group, while another reviewer was opposed to it.
  Therefore, WICG was added to the list of liaisons and work may be
  (but need not be) started there.

3 reviewers asked for A. One reviewer (me) objected. Charter is approved
with B and why and how it happened that way is not shared with ACs since
we never got more information that that. Was it even discussed with me
who objected? No. I even pinged PLH about it to get W3M's position, he

> we don't have one yet since I don't know the status of this particular comment

Never heard back past that message. So it was discussed only with the
browser vendors calling for that change OR not discussed with anyone.
Either way is completely wrong.

Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 22:11:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 18 December 2016 22:11:28 UTC