- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:55:40 -0500
- To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Cc: "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
On 10 Oct 2012, at 4:38 PM, Young, Milan wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] >> On 10 Oct 2012, at 3:26 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] >>>> On 10 Oct 2012, at 1:26 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >>>>> I found Arthur's feedback on CGs [1] useful. In that statement he >>>>> made 5 >>>> suggestions (labeled a-e) for content that SHOULD be included on a >>>> community's home page. I'd like to give my support to these >>>> suggestions, and further recommend that these become MUST >> requirements. >>>> >>>> Hi Milan, >>>> >>>> As mentioned in other threads, charters and operational agreements >>>> are considered good practice. I heard a suggestion for a charter >>>> template that groups can easily copy and modify. That's something we can >> easily do. >>> >>> [Milan] Simplifying the "paperwork" is an excellent first step, but it does not >> address my fundamental concern. I'd like to turn the question around by >> asking for reasons why we should NOT require a fleshed op agreement. >> >> Because there is not one model for CGs. The CG process is minimalist because >> we do not want to overconstrain groups. > > [Milan] I'm not asking for a single model to fit all groups. All I'm asking is that groups publish their model, and that it meets certain minimal requirements (ie a-e in Arthur's email). The minimal requirements constitute a single (underlying) model. Requiring a group to publish a model imposes a cost. I just want to be sure we understand that. > >> We should first try to see whether we can make progress through guidance >> and good practice. > [Milan] You found yourself an example where this didn't work. > > >> Where we need a rule, we should have the least constraining rule possible. > [Milan] Agreed. > > >> For example, between a rule about "how a group changes chairs" and a rule >> "requiring publication of operational agreements," I would prefer the former. >> (Note: I am not arguing for the former here, I am just using it as an example to >> make a point). Why? Because there is a high cost to writing down operational >> agreements up front, especially if you are new to this sort of thing. > > [Milan] I support the preset menu idea. For example, choose a) democratic, b) autocratic, c) complete consensus, or d) other. If "other" is selected, it needs to meet minimal coverage requirements. It cannot be based on vauge ideas like "Prefers rough consensus". I suggest we do this for each of the categories that Author put forward. I would be willing to help in that cause. > > >> On the >> other hand, there (I believe) a lower cost to a "chair change" rule because (1) >> by default nobody has to do anything! (2) such a rule could have a positive >> impact on chairing without imposing a particular operational model: if the >> group is unhappy (whatever their operational model) they can simply change >> chairs. > [Milan] I'm not following you on this point. What good are musical chairs if the previous chair is allowed to set the selection criteria? That's what would change: there could be a new rule regarding selection criteria. Ian > > Of course if the operational agreement said up front that Putin would be the dictator, and he would choose his successor (e.g. Medvedev), that would be reasonable arrangement. At least folks would be informed on what to expect. > > >> By the way, strengthening the existing chair-selection procedures could be >> seen as only a small change to the existing process, which already says: "The >> participants of the Group choose their Chair(s)." > [Milan] That portion of the existing process document is misworded. It should read "Participants MAY choose their chair if the op agreement allows it. By default, the chair elects himself." > > >> >> Ian >> >> >>> What sort of opportunities would CGs miss with such a policy? >>> Are those opportunities aligned with the W3C mission statement? >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Transparency is at the heart of voluntary good behavior. With >>>>> transparency, >>>> communities will be more willing to offer principled terms [2] to >>>> attract membership. Without transparency, members will naively join >>>> in good faith (after all the W3C is a principled [2] organization), >>>> and later become victimized by "bait and switch" behavior (e.g. [3]). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/2012Sep/0020.html >>>>> [2] http://open-stand.org/principles/ [3] >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Oct/0018.h >>>>> tml >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ >>>> Tel: +1 718 260 9447 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ >> Tel: +1 718 260 9447 > > -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 21:55:42 UTC