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

Re: Obsoleting

From: Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:38:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CALiHrgnTtaDpCx9s1MevXj5a3tHvYqKo1WTOUWaD_Zo6vq8jwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
I think this looks reasonable from the TAG perspective, reflecting the
discussion we held on last week's TAG teleconference


On Tue, 10 May 2016 at 05:50 David Singer <singer@mac.com> 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 (otherwise) that a document be Obsoleted or Rescinded.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.
> Dave Singer
> singer@mac.com
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2016 10:38:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 May 2016 10:38:39 UTC