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

Re: Obsoleting

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:30:01 -0700
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <57326EF9.9050101@linux.intel.com>


On 2016-05-09 16:42, David Singer wrote:
>> On May 9, 2016, at 9:14 , L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>>
>> (The one other thing I was worried about with this obsoletion
>> discussion was that it might be creating a process that's hard
>> enough to complete that it will never be used successfully.)
> It does seem very heavy, but only because of the fail-safe valves in some places.  Those valves are actually missing from the Rescind process as well, so we could make it all much easier and adjust the section on Rescinding to cover both cases. (For example, we have no way to Rescind a document if the WG no longer exists; there is no way for the AC to over-ride a bad WG decision, or to proceed in the absence of a decision.)
>
> * Anyone suggest to the owning Working Group (if it exists) or the TAG (otherwise) that a document be Obsoleted or Rescinded.
> * That group does the technical sanity check etc.
> * The AC votes
> * The Director approves
> * The team does the appropriate marking/editing.
>
> Safety valves: AC can override the WG/TAG ’no' if someone can find 5% of the AC wanting to force a ballot. If the WG/TAG doesn’t act in 90 days, anyone can force it to the AC by saying “timeout!”. The AC can appeal the final Director decision.
>
+1

combining them is good, as is listing the safety valve exceptional case 
separately.  that makes it clear it almost always is very simple.  i 
think its a good model for a lot of decisions.
>
> Dave Singer
>
> singer@mac.com
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 23:30:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 May 2016 23:30:26 UTC