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

Re: Requesting - again - immediate clarification of Section 7.1

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:03:27 +0200
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1d6658ee-fdc2-953f-1420-82f1e98a0392@disruptive-innovations.com>
Le 28/04/2017 à 01:24, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :

> 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.


Sorry but I am requesting for a clarification of the Process and if the
Strategy function is responsible for the realization of that part of the
Process, you can't be both judge and jury. You're not "responsible for
that part of the Process" but only for its implementation in daily W3C
activities. This is a Process issue, to be discussed by the AB and the
Process TF. I note I'm only a member of the latter, not the former; I'm
then here only the submitter of the issue. I asked for one clarification
and suggested some changes that seem to me to mitigate the issue.

> 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 never said you shouldn't. I said I strongly disagree with the
submission, during the course of the Review period, of new versions
of the documents being reviewed to the ACs. Preparing such documents
is fine by me *if and only if* the last paragraph of section 7.1.2 that
seems to me to say the discussions happen AFTER the end of the Review
period is clarified that way by the AB.

> 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.

I don't think this is an issue raised against the Strategy team, sorry.
This is a Process issue for the AB. Reminder:

1. I am opposed to any change to review/vote conditions during the
   review/vote itself, including through public changes to the documents
   being reviewed, according to section 7.1.1.

2. I am asking for AB's stand on section 7.1.2

Received on Friday, 28 April 2017 06:04:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 28 April 2017 06:04:08 UTC