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

Re: Agenda: Process Document TF Telcon on Monday, 13 June, 2016

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:55:52 -0400
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <26af8158-75ed-2545-0ec5-758cca3840c7@w3.org>


On 6/10/2016 1:51 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> *From:*Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:32 PM
> *To:* Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>; public-w3process@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Agenda: Process Document TF Telcon on Monday, 13 June, 2016
>
> On 6/9/2016 12:05 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
>     The call is on Monday, 13 June, 2016 at 15:00-16:00 UTC
>     <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+Process+Document+Task+Force+Meeting&iso=20160411T08&p1=224&ah=1>
>
>
> Regrets.
>
>
>     *Webex Information is on our Mail Archives
>     internal-w3process@w3.org <mailto:internal-w3process@w3.org> (see
>     separate e-mail to this list)*
>
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2016Jun/0000.html
>      (member only accessible)
>
>     For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times were:
>
>     Pacific:  8:00
>
>     Eastern US: 11:00
>
>     Central Europe: 17:00
>
>     Japan: 24:00
>
>     The purpose of these meetings has been to agree on the resolution
>     of open issues, close them where possible or assign actions to
>     move toward closure.
>
>     Agenda:
>
>     1.A new method to vote for AB and TAG Members
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Voting
>     https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/wiki/Voting2016
>
>     2.A consideration of whether to include a notion of an Obsolete
>     spec (not to be confused with a rescinded spec)
>
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Maintenance
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0056.html
>
>
>     3.Cleaning up the handling of the Appeals Process in the existing
>     Process Document
>
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.html
>
>     Note that item 11 in this message should also be labelled with
>     Issue 167 and that these changes address some of the issues that
>     were raised in the e-mail discussion of item 2 above.
>
>
> Since I cannot attend Monday, I will repeat what I have said in the past.
>
> I appreciate the intellectual thought that is driving use cases that 
> leads to these proposals.
>
> However, many of these use cases have never happened in practice.  And 
> adding process text for cases that never happen is an anti-pattern for 
> our goal of streamlining the process.
>
> SZ: to the best of my knowledge no Appeal has ever happened, but that 
> is not a reason to not have clear instructions on what can be appealed 
> and how. Most of the changes in the “Clean-up” are related to issues 
> that were raised in comments during the Review of Process 2015. At 
> that time we agreed to do a Clean-up of the text to make the 
> identification of what is appealable and how to do it more clear. The 
> items that are labeled with Issue-164 or Issue-165 are of that 
> category. Only Issue-167 introduces a new Appeal. The other items are 
> “simplifying the process by making it more clear” and are not adding 
> to the size (in any significant way. In fact, some of the changes 
> shrink the document. Therefore, I believe your comment on it being an 
> “anti-pattern” to be substantially incorrect and not in agreement with 
> commitments made in getting Process2015 approved without resolving all 
> the comments given at that time.
>

I was not referring to those cases that were pure clean-up.  I was 
referring to those cases where the content was changed.  I now 
understand that you are not referring to the entire thread on appeal 
reformation, but are limited to your email of 13 July 2015.  In that 
case, changes in content, I believe, are:

7.2 Director rejects despite positive reviews.
7.2 "AC reps may initiate an appeal for Director decisions that do not 
involve AC review."  I actually can't tell whether this is "new" or it 
may be totally redundant since it just points to other sections and can 
be dropped.
11 Director rejects despite positive review

>
>
>
>     4.The existing CG discussion about Member organizations.
>
>     https://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-minutes.html
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0003.html
>
>
>     5.Supergroups
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Supergroups
>
>     6.Any other topics
>
>     Steve Zilles
>
>     Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force
>
Received on Friday, 10 June 2016 13:56:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 June 2016 13:56:04 UTC