W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2016

Re: WICG Incubation vs CSSWG Process

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:58:02 -0500
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <655b5c89-5cc6-8fb0-ca87-818c83daf727@w3.org>


On 12/27/2016 3:42 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
> The W3C Process makes clear that issues are ultimately resolved by the Director’s “fiat”, and at least in practice “The Director” equates to “W3M” for all but the thorniest issues.  Also, the process makes clear that the Director+AC grants charters to WGs, the WG’s don’t even exist until they have an approved charter.  So it’s not clear how the current process would allow WGs to review their charters.  Arguably the community of stakeholders for a set of specs, which usually more or less equates to the members of previous WGs that drafted those specs, should have an explicit role in reviewing W3M/Director resolution of objections to a charter, and that seems like an appropriate topic for the Process CG.

Mike, although you say "WG's don't even exist until they have an 
approved charter" - in practice - especially with "Supergroups" - they do.

Almost everyone would agree that for all practical purposes the working 
group we had in 2015 called CSS should have a lot of say in the new 
charter that the group called CSS should have in 2017.

Indeed that is the practice of the Team.  When creating "the next 
charter" for a Supergroup we almost always consult extensively with the 
WG.  Practices vary because different WGs want to interact at different 
levels.  Sometimes the WG itself drafts the Charter - even has a CFC - 
as with the current proposed WCAG recharter.  Sometimes the Team drafts 
the Charter and may share it with the WGs.  Some WGs delegate that to 
Chairs.  Often it is a collaborative effort.

When there are Objections, W3M's practice is to go back to the relevant 
group as it tries to find consensus.  Some (like Chaals) want that 
formalized a bit more.  W3M will not approve a Charter if it believes 
that changes would have changed people's review.  The Director does not 
decide by "fiat" in most cases.  (There are unusual cases where there is 
no consensus - and at those times the Director might decide by fiat.)  
That's not what happened when we produced a Charter which said CSS 
incubation was permitted in WICG. In that case, W3M (apparently 
incorrectly) was of the opinion that permitting incubation in the WICG 
would not change anyone's review.

>    Alternatively, maybe the AB, TAG, and/or AC – presumably in an accelerated review, not the ponderous 30-day WBS ballot mechanism – should have a role in reviewing W3M’s resolution.
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 20:58:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 27 December 2016 20:58:12 UTC