W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Some templates started [Was: Missing op agreement warning]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 20:05:04 -0600
Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2A817B73-9003-4B66-9BAE-4DBF5EE8E387@w3.org>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>

On 3 Jan 2013, at 1:16 PM, Young, Milan wrote:

> I have two issues with the proposed language:
>  * It doesn't grab the reader's attention.  Anyone with a high school education already knows formal arrangements promote trust.  Putting statements like that up front leads the reader to believe the rest of the paragraph is blah blah.
>  * Even if the reader does make it to the content, there is little information.  They learn the decision making process can change without an op agreement, but that probably isn't surprising.   The truly surprising part (ALL communication outside the op agreement is non-binding), remains unstated.
> I will only support language that clearly communicates the potential risk.  If we are embarrassed by the potential risk, then our effort should be applied towards reducing the risk not sugar-coating around it.

Hi Milan,

Maybe a useful way to make progress on this question is to analyze the difference between a CG and a WG.

I'm not so much interested in the explicit differences like "the Director chooses a WG Chair; the CG chooses its Chair" .

There's another difference that's explicit: W3C requires WGs to follow a consensus process; we merely recommend that CGs do.

You wrote: "all communication outside the operational agreement is non-binding." What would you contrast that statement with in the W3C process for Working Groups?


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:25 PM
>> To: Young, Milan
>> Cc: Ian Jacobs; public-council@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Some templates started [Was: Missing op agreement warning]
>> I'm starting to understand Milan's point better.  Saying "ask them" when the
>> problem he's worried about is not trusting them, doesn't help, and possibly
>> hurts.  But I'd also like to keep it positive in tone, like it is.
>> How about:
>> Note: This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its scope,
>> deliverables, and decision process. Groups that clearly document their
>> practices promote participation, build trust, and avoid conflict that arises from
>> differing expectations. In the absence of a charter, participants may find that
>> the way decisions are made change over time or violate their expectations of
>> how the group was to operate.
>> On 12/27/2012 5:05 PM, Young, Milan wrote:
>>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>>>> I think our obligation is to say "You must be attentive." I do not think our
>> obligation is to scare people off.
>>> [Milan] I don't want to scare people off either, but it's wrong to omit details
>> that would surprise them.  I'm certain people would be surprised to learn, for
>> example, a chair can make commitments on a public forum and then recount
>> without due process to the group.
>>> There are only two choices:
>>>   * Educate participants on topics that are likely to surprise them.  The
>> visibility of the education must be in proportion to the expected surprise.  A
>> "note" that participants should "seek additional information" isn't
>> proportional to the potential dangers.
>>>   * Change the rules so that surprising circumstances are prevented by the
>> framework.  I'm sympathetic to the difficulties opposing this approach.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 02:05:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:16 UTC