- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:31:46 -0600
- To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
On 27 Dec 2012, at 12:03 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] >> >> On 26 Dec 2012, at 3:20 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >> >>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] >>>> Regarding language when there is no operational agreement / charter >>>> (Wayne, I note the request above to drop "operational agreement"), >>>> here's an >>>> alternative: >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Note: This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its >>>> scope, deliverables, and decision process. While W3C recommends that >>>> CGs operate by consensus, this is not a requirement. In the absence >>>> of a charter describing the group's decision process, participants >>>> are encouraged to seek additional information (e.g., from the group's >>>> Chair). Groups that clearly document their practices promote >>>> participation, build trust, and avoid conflict that arises from differing >> expectations. >>> >>> [Milan] This proposal suggests statements from the chair (public or private) >> are substitutes for an operational agreement. Since the W3M does not have a >> track record of enforcing commitments from the chair, this is misleading. >> >> What is misleading? > > [Milan] The implication of your statement above is that one can communicate with the chair to learn of operational procedures if an op-agreement is missing. The problem is that the chair has no requirement to hold to their statements, which would likely surprise the reader. Thus, your statement is misleading. I think our obligation is to say "You must be attentive." I do not think our obligation is to scare people off. Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2012 23:31:49 UTC