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

Re: [DRAFT for comment] email to the AC on issue #6

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 01:34:49 -0400
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <dd75921c-c578-4f5f-5c94-c00d0d90230b@w3.org>

I think that the role of the AB is definitely within the scope of the 
Process CG and is a topic that we have not considered for some time.  As 
such, I think it is appropriate to tee it up to the Advisory Committee.

I think that your draft email below is certainly acceptable from my 
point of view, but I don't think it is optimal.

Usually, when an issue is raised, the person/team raising the issue has 
given some thought to the issue so that it is a well structured 
question.  It seems to me that it would be appropriate for the Process 
CG and especially the AB to weigh in on the topic first and provide the 
AC with some of their thoughts on the topic.

We recently had an analogous situation with the TAG.  Someone wrote to 
the AB that we should reconsider the role of the TAG.  I took a strong 
position that while I agreed that the AB should do that - that I felt 
that we needed the TAG to provide their own thinking and input first.  
They are working on it.

IAC, that's only my opinion on the optimal approach.  If you prefer to 
ask the AC in an open, unstructured way, I don't object.


On 5/17/2017 5:07 PM, David Singer wrote:
> The process CG is working through filed issues and deciding which ones to spend time on, and if one is a candidate for spending time on, what the next steps are.
> One we looked at in the recent call is:
> Are the role and structure of the AB adequately defined? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/6>
> Converted from <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/142>, in turn bearing the comment "Inherited from the AC tracker”
> * * * *
> The Process CG discussed today whether we should take this question up, and we felt that we need guidance from the AC. There are two explicit questions here, and a third one implied.
> 1) Is the structure of the AB adequately defined?  The answer would seem to be yes, in that elections etc. define the composition.
> 2) Is the role of the AB adequately defined?  One might argue that a clearer definition of role could be achieved, but it’s doubtful that that would improve what the AB actually does, so it’s doubtful the AB itself needs a clearer definition. So, question to the AC: are people outside the AB uncertain of the role of the AB, and would a re-definition help?
> Then there is am implied question:
> 3) Do the role and structure of the AB match what we want and need?
> This is clearly a large can of worms and opens the possibility of multiple lengthy responses and replies to responses.  However, despite calls for more active engagement with the AB, more active AB work, and so on, it’s not clear that the AC sees any problems with the defined role and structure.
> So, the overall question to the AC: should we take this up, and if so, to improve what, or solve what problem (i.e. to what goal or end would we be working)?
> David Singer
> Process CG Chair
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2017 05:35:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 18 May 2017 05:35:01 UTC