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 23:29:47 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <27516715-5df0-49b3-049f-a936832b0608@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 18/12/2016 21:25, Michael Champion wrote:

> Daniel, I can understand why you think the “Director’s” changes to the final CSS charter

Hi Mike.

Mike, I know perfectly who introduced that change, how and when. And
it's not the Director. Announcements are sent in the name of the
Director but the last time he chaired a Spec confcall was long ago and
he sent exactly 5 messages to the AC Forum in 6 years. In 7.5 years of
CSS WG co-chairmanship, only Ralph and PLH have chaired a confcall with
us. Let's call a cat a cat, please and let's keep Tim outside of this
story. Thanks.

> it does have a rationale for the change

Sorry, I don't see a rationale for the change. I see a count of the pro
and con opinions leading to a "THEN we made a change". This is not a
rationale, but only a report. And I am also saying 3+1 is very hardly
enough as a representative basis for such an important decision.

> And as Jeff has noted, the change is completely voluntary.

Yes, I know it is. And that change is clearly a problem since my
objection was never discussed with me and the outcome was never
discussed with the objecter.

> 1. Some individual, usually the founder, has final authority over all activities and delegates it as he/she sees fit (the current model)
> 2.  Some group selected based on “merit” hold authority to decide issues that cannot be resolved by consensus (IETF and Apache come to mind)
> 3. The wider membership selects a Board of Directors that have authority to hire/fire staff and determine how technical decisions are made (most SDO’s operate this way, I believe)
> 
> Is it even plausible that we could find a Director with the credibility to make decisions stick AND who has the time to devote to W3C day to day operations so that decisions such as this would not be delegated to W3M? If not, are options 2 or 3 (or others) worth considering? 

See my first paragraph above about 1.

About 2, yes, this is clearly my proposal. That group is the AB. And if
you recall correctly, I have always said the AB needs to become the
Supreme Court of W3C's Process.

I don't like item 3. But I think there is room and opportunity to add
Votes of Confidence to the Process.

About your last sentence: you mean a Director who would work fulltime
at W3C? Yes, certainly.

</Daniel>
Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 22:30:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 18 December 2016 22:30:21 UTC