- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:14:24 -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 16 Jan 2013, at 2:11 PM, Young, Milan wrote: > > >> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] >> On 15 Jan 2013, at 1:54 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >> >>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] >>>> On 7 Jan 2013, at 2:13 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >>>> >>>>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] >>>>>> Note: By design, Community Groups have few process requirements. >>>>>> This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its >>>>>> decision process, and as a result, there is limited accountability >>>>>> in how the Chair reaches decisions. The Community Group process >>>>>> affords greater protections to those groups that document their decision >> processes. >>>>> >>>>> [Milan] A couple suggested edits: >>>>> * Delete your first sentence >>>> >>>> Why? I think the second sentence makes less sense without the context. >>>> >>>> One could add context back this way: >>>> >>>> Note: This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its >>>> decision process, and because of the lightweight CG process, there is >>>> limited accountability in how the Chair reaches decisions. >>> [Milan] Replace "Note" with "Warning", and I'll support this. >> >> How about "Caution"? > [Milan] Agreed. Cool! :) >>>>> * Replace "there is limited accountability in how the Chair reaches >>>> decisions" with "the Chair(s) have no obligation to consider the >>>> opinion of the members or maintain commitments." >>>> >>>> Those are overly sweeping statements. There are, for example, >>>> licensing commitments over which the Chair has no say. >>> [Milan] How about: "the Chair(s) have no obligation to consider the opinion >> of the members or maintain commitments outside those specifically required >> by the <link>CG process</link>." >> >> I still believe that is too broad. > [Milan] Too broad in its emotional response, or too broad in the scope of what is written? Both. But my comment was mostly about the latter. > > >>>> I prefer my version. >>> [Milan] My first priority is to alert potential participants to the pitfalls which >> may lie ahead. I'd prefer this would not cause undue embarrassment to the >> W3C or the host CG, but I'm not willing to compromise on the first priority. >>> >>> I'm getting the sense that you have a different first priority. If you don't >> agree with my counter-proposal, perhaps it would make sense to take a step >> back and first agree on the priorities before proposing more copy. >> >> As I said, my first priority is really the chair selection algorithm. After that, I >> think this language can be useful, and I support the goal of alerting. It is also >> my goals to raise awareness while encouraging participation. > > [Milan] I understand you are trying to balance the severity of the text against other corrective measures. But I think you are forgetting about the balance between the severity of the text and the simplicity of the solution. Just adopt a process agreement, and the problem goes away! A process agreement is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for success. It's just a good idea for a lot of reasons. > The way the current CG process is written, a chair doesn't even need radification from the group (or the other chair) to adopt the agreement. Once in place a respectful chair will hopefully validate with the group, but if they are not inclined to take that step, things would have soon gone badly for the group anyway. Ian > > >> >> Ian >> >> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> A quick context reminder here: this text is a small patch. The >>>>>> primary change we plan to make regarding accountability (as >>>>>> discussed in November [1]) is around Chair selection. >>>>> >>>>> [Milan] A small patch can still deliver a lot of information if it >>>>> cuts the fluff >>>> and gets to the point. >>>>> >>>>> If groups find the language objectionable (which I hope they will), >>>>> they have >>>> an easy solution: adopt an op agreement. They can choose from the >>>> present menu or cut/paste from another group. We can give advanced >>>> notice to existing groups so they can avoid the warning appearing on their >> homepage. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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, 16 January 2013 21:14:27 UTC