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: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:57:31 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <1c5b9d39-13f9-810a-d787-f0832651c09c@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 22/12/2016 14:14, Jeff Jaffe wrote:

> I don't think it is academic at all.  As I mentioned elsewhere in the
> thread, I would be quite interested if there is a consensus of the CSSWG
> that the reference to WICG be dropped from the Charter.

Short answer, we don't "have any authority to (answer) in the name of
the CSS WG".

Why didn't you ask that question BEFORE inserting that incubation
change into the Charter totally baffles me. At this point, I'd like to
establish a comparison with another recently approved [1] Charter, the
Audio Working Group's Charter:

1. The review started on the 3rd of october
2. During the review a comment was considered as introducing a
   change requiring notification to ACs
3. The Charter was updated *AND* a notification of change was
   sent to all ACs on the 22nd of november so ACs could approve
   or not the change or even revise their votes
4. The Charter was approved earlier today, so one month later, leaving
   largely enough time to ACs to deal with that change

The way the substantive change to the Audio WG Charter was handled is
precisely what we expected from W3M for the CSS WG, precisely what
should always happen. Section 2.2 of the Process makes "assessment of
consensus" a "key responsibility" for the Director (and his delegates)
in the Chartering process, and it was clearly not respected with the
CSS WG Charter.

I understand W3M still does not see why the change to the CSS WG
Charter was substantive; you have here at least 3 members of the CSS WG
in major disagreement with your point of view. Incubation was limited to
CSS WG and joint efforts with other WGs. You changed that, and it is
clearly substantive, at least to me.

We're not discussing what the CSS WG thinks now of incubation in WICG,
Jeff (and it's out of scope here), you have all the powers to prompt
your Staff Contacts about that. We're discussing the way you made the

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2016OctDec/0069.html

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 16:57:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 December 2016 16:57:58 UTC