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: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:36:15 +0100
To: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3cb14ca5-fe3f-ab65-c47b-f255c02432f2@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 19/12/2016 14:24, Jeff Jaffe wrote:

> We did not expect any dangers.

First, thanks for that long message. Finally...
About the dangers, wow, just wow.

> I'm not aware of any.  But I wasn't the person that was personally involved in these discussions. 

Excerpt from Lisbon minutes:

  "we would have a hard time to follow this group if it doesn't change."

>>   Who exactly approved the
>> Charter in the name of the Director?
> 
> W3M. 

Well, from a Process point of view, Section 7 mentions "_the_ Director's
delegate" and 2.2 mentions "generally to other _individuals_ in the
Team" so I don't think W3M as a whole is a valid delegate, but I
understand you won't reply with more precision anyway.

>> I understand if the answers are posted to a Member-only forum but this
>> is an official request and, for once, I dare asking in the name of all
>> members of the CSS WG and, beyond, all ACs.
> 
> I want to make clear that I am providing this response as a personal
> response to you.

Thanks, appreciated, but I was not asking Jeff here, I was asking, as a
Member, the CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium. So I have no idea what
purpose serves your sentence immediately above.

> I don't recognize that you have any authority to ask in the name of the
> CSS WG or all ACs.  As I said elsewhere in this thread, it would be
> significant input to me if the CSSWG wanted a Charter change. That
> should come as an appropriate consensus of the CSSWG, not from a single
> individual asking in the name of all members of the CSS WG.

Who said a Charter change is asked for? Not me, never. And nobody else,
AFAIK. On another hand, I said - and some others said it too - other
Members were, like me, shocked by how this happened.

Who said "authority"? I asked "in the name" so they could get that
information too and make their own mind, not to represent their opinion,
of course.

I am going to stop here this thread that goes into circles until I post
my process change proposals. My summary is simple: despite current AC
input, despite heated discussions in the WG, W3M does not understand
why it should have discussed that major change with the WG and have ACs
vote on it, why the whole rationale you just sent had to be given to
ACs (in compliance with 7.1.2 item 2), why consensus rules should have
been respected, and more. Speaking of authority, I think the authority
W3C gave itself to implement that change under 7.1.2 item 2 is not in
the spirit of the Process (even if it is in its current words) and was
clearly falling under 7.1.3 item 3 because too subtantive as a change.
I think W3M allows itself far too much latitude wrt the Process.
My conclusion is that managerial changes should be considered.

</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 19 December 2016 14:36:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 December 2016 14:36:52 UTC