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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:05 PM
> To: Young, Milan
> Cc: Wayne Carr; public-council@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Some templates started [Was: Missing op agreement warning]
> 
> 
> 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?

[Milan] I don't know the WG process well enough to answer that question.  What are your ideas?



> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> >> -----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 19:29:17 UTC