Re: [charter-html] Using CfC for Decisions (#117)

> On Sep 17, 2015, at 8:12 , Arthur Barstow <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> The issue as recorded mixes and conflates a few things:
> 
>  • "Announcing tentative decisions in the draft minutes (not even final) is not enough". "Not enough" for what?

To be visible to the entire community.  We’re talking about formal declarations of consensus and decisions here. They cannot be buried in draft minutes.

> What exactly is the problem and please note the draft charter already explicitly
> stipulates that all meeting minutes are provisional for 10 days after the minutes are announced.

That’s a completely different question.

> 
>  • "any issue worthy of needing a formal decision is also worthy of a separate email, saying ‘Call for Consensus/CfC: xxx’". What does "issue" mean here?

Where a formal Decision of the Working Group is being made.

> Is this github Issues, process issues, technical issues? My expectation is this group will use CfCs to record consensus for a variety of reasons and I don't think the charter should micro-manage/constrain how the group uses its CfCs.

I am talking about any case where the chairs want to, or need to, claim that they have the consensus of the working group.

> 
>  • "Many people do not have the time to check draft minutes every week, but everyone deserves to be alerted of pending decisions. Also, even draft minutes are sometimes delayed. Please revise the policy to use explicit CfC notifications.". Please see the Decision Policy in the draft charter and the feedback above.

That’s what the comment was about in the first place. Burying formal consensus calls in *draft minutes* is not appropriate.

> To help minimize the disruption of ongoing work in WebApps and HTMLWG, my expectation is those two groups will continue to use their existing mail lists as before, and a new list for the proposed group (say public-webplatform or public-webplatform-admin) should be created and the staff/chairs should make sure all meeting minutes are announced (f.ex. Cc'ed) on this new list (and (optionally) to the existing list). Of course this new list would also be used for group-wide CfCs.

You’re talking about minutes.  I’m talking about formal claims of consensus, formal decisions of the WG, and so on.

I think what the HTML working group does today works well; Paul sends an email announcing the CfC and the deadline. It’s evident from the subject line that he’s determining whether there is consensus.  Anyone can easily notice; they don’t need to read all the minutes.  Please continue this practice. Thank you.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.



---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/117#issuecomment-141510544