W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Requesting - again - immediate clarification of Section 7.1

From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:24:36 -0400
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20170427232436.GE7164@jay.w3.org>
Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your comments. As preparation and review of new charters fits into the Strategy function, I'm responsible for that part of the process. Since October 2016, when I took on that role, I believe we have improved the process and its transparency to members, and I'm sure there's still more work to do. 

Since our goal in preparing charters is to find conesnsus around what new work should be started, I encourage discussion, ideally before the charter is formally presented to the Advisory Committee, but not stopping then. If we can find ways of resolving objections without instigating new objections, I don't see why we wouldn't start looking for that route to consensus as soon as we became aware of an objection. 
I'll look forward to engaging with your concerns in more detail once I'm back from the AC meeting and can discuss with the Strategy team. 

Thanks,
--Wendy

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:10:44AM +0200, Daniel Glazman wrote:
>
>Dear Tim and w3processs Members,
>
>A while ago, the Charter Review of the CSS WG triggered, after the
>Director's decision, huge reactions because a rule-breaking change was
>introduced during the course of the Review despite of objections and was
>announced only 48 hours before Lisbon's TPAC. And then 48 hours later,
>during Lisbon's TPAC, a Member immediately and formally used the new
>mechanism introduced by that change. In short, some Members were already
>traveling, missed the announcement and could not object or even appeal.
>Immediately after, I started a discussion about potential immediate
>changes to Section 7.1 but that was deferred to "Process 2018" despite
>of my warnings.
>
>Today, the Publishing Working Group's Charter [1] is under AC Review.
>Two objections [2] were filed, including mine. W3C Team started
>discussing the details of the objections with the submitters. That
>discussion was held in the Publishing mailing-lists and public-new-
>work@w3.org. A new document based on the originally proposed Charter and
>including changes representing a compromise was produced by W3C Team.
>W3C Team then proposed to submit that document to the ACs [3]
>immediately. I disagree 100% with that idea [4] and, to be honest, I
>don't even understand how this can be proposed.
>
>- one Member review already references the discussions that took place
>  while these discussions are not linked from the WBS form nor from the
>  results page.
>
>- sending an revamped Charter, even informatively, creates
>  confusion. The sort of confusion that led to the CSS WG Charter issue
>  detailed above. Which document is the Review about? What does it
>  mean to existing reviews if ACs who already voted do not or cannot
>  notice the new document?
>
>- Section 7.1.2 [5] details four outcomes of an AC Review and four
>  outcomes only: approval modulo minor changes; approval modulo
>  substantive changes and Director's rationale; returned for more work;
>  rejected. The submission of a revamped proposal during the Review
>  itself is not an option.
>
>- only ACs subscribed to the Publishing mailing-lists followed the
>  discussions.
>
>This is the n-th time documents under Review at W3C are changed during
>the Review period itself, in an attempt to sort objections out as fast
>as possible and allow a positive outcome for the documents under Review.
>I disagree with that habit that focuses on speed to the detriment of
>Process and quality of the votes, and am therefore asking for a
>immediate stricter interpretation of Section 7.1:
>
>1. general discussions can of course take place during the Review in the
>   mailing-lists meant for that. But please see item 5 below.
>
>2. mailing-lists for discussions MUST be linked from the WBS page (this
>   is NOT the case for the Publishing WG Charter's wbs) so all ACs
>   can find and read the discussions.
>
>3. the document(s) under Review MUST NOT be modified in any way during
>   the Review period.
>
>4. a revamped version of the document(s) under Review in answer to
>   already posted reviews and/or subsequent discussions MUST NOT be sent
>   to ACs nor made public during the Review period.
>
>5. it remains possible for the Team to prepare such new document(s)
>   based on discussions in item 1 and have it (them) ready for
>   submission to ACs at the end of the review BUT it must be noted that
>   Section 7.1.2 of the Process seems to say the discussions on the
>   review comments happen after the end of the review period. It's not
>   the case at all today. I am then formally asking the AB to clarify
>   the following: is it even allowed, per Process and according to
>   Section 7.1.2, to discuss the Review comments during the Review
>   period?
>
>6. I am also asking for a 7-days moratorium on Director's decisions
>   following a Review before all AC meetings and TPAC.
>
>As a result, I am then totally opposed to that submission of a revamped
>Publishing WG Charter during the course of the Review.
>
>I understand it will delay Reviews having formal objections but sorry,
>I cannot care: rule #1 of democracy and even consensus is that
>nobody ever changes the condition of a poll or the candidates during the
>poll itself. This is exactly what I am asking for above. That happened
>far too many times at W3C, and I hate that impression we conform to the
>Process only when it helps, and not when it's more a burden.
>
>The only way to avoid formal objections and negative outcomes on Reviews
>is the submission of better documents, not behind-the-curtains work
>around the Process.
>
>Thanks.
>
>[1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/publwg/
>[2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/publwg/results
>[3]
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publishingbg/2017Apr/0080.html
>[4]
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publishingbg/2017Apr/0082.html
>[5] https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#ACReviewAfter
>
></Daniel>
>

-- 
-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)                                                                 
Strategy Lead and Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)                                                                           
https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 23:24:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 23:24:43 UTC