Re: Call for Consensus (in email) on closing out process 2019, ONE WEEK POLL closing NOV 15th

On 11/14/18 8:25 AM, fantasai wrote:
> On 11/8/18 6:04 PM, David Singer wrote:> Folks
>  >
>  > Jeff has gently reminded me that I should have held the process call by now, in order to get 
> Process 2019 to vote by the AC (and review by the AB and team). So, since we didn’t have a call this 
> week (mea culpa)…
>  >
>  > This is a formal Call for Consensus on 4 questions below. Please respond within 7 days, i.e. by 
> 9am Pacific  on the 15th November.  These need to be binary yes/no or approve/reject responses, please.
>  >
>  > Looking at the remaining Issues, I believe that there are no issues that don’t have Pull Requests 
> that are mature enough and urgent enough to address.
>  >
>  > The four questions:
>  >
>  > 1) The existing document at GitHub <https://w3c.github.io/w3process/> represents changes that we 
> had consensus to incorporate. However, we have not established consensus that the resulting document 
> should be sent ahead.  A diff with the current process (including, at the end, a summary of changes) 
> can be seen by using the W3C Diff Service 
> <https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2FProcess-20180201%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F> 
> 
>  >
>  > Do we have consensus to send at least the current draft <https://w3c.github.io/w3process/> on to 
> the AB, W3M, and then AC for approval?
> 
> No. I disagree because I think https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/223 should
> also be addressed for Process 2019.
> 
> I otherwise find this update to be an improvement and approve the changes.

dsinger asked me to clarify whether I object to the current draft as-is
vs the existing Process 2018. No, I think the Process 2019 draft is an
improvement over Process 2018 and would rather it be adopted than not.

I do think the AB should take up the matter of chairing immediately,
however. Even if it wants more time to decide whether the AB should be
allowed to choose its own chair as suggested in the issue, it should at
least accept Tzviya's suggestion to allow the possibility of a co-chair
for Process 2019.

(I also would be very displeased if the AB at some point requested the
Team to choose a particular chair and the Team refused for no clear and
obvious reason. But I'm OK with the Team continuing to choose the chair
for Process 2019.)

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 18:37:58 UTC