Re: Obsoleting

I think this looks reasonable from the TAG perspective, reflecting the
discussion we held on last week's TAG teleconference
<https://pad.w3ctag.org/p/04-05-2016-minutes.md>.

Dan

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 (otherwise) that a document be Obsoleted or Rescinded.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
>
>
>