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

(no subject)

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:39:30 -0600
Cc: "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8EAB82F2-5857-4436-A179-74DF652148ED@w3.org>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, AWL=-3.797, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TvsV0-0002M6-Qz 60ad9ddd5c64cadd7e67d858b9990c1d
X-Original-To: public-council@w3.org
Subject: Re: Some templates started [Was: Missing op agreement warning]

Comment inline.

On 16 Jan 2013, at 5:45 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:

> On 1/16/2013 1:44 PM, Young, Milan wrote:
>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>> [snip]
>>> A process agreement is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for success.   It's just a good idea for a lot of reasons.
>> [Milan] Agreed, but that's not the subject of this thread.  We are trying to come to resolution on the text which alerts potential participants to the potential dangers joining a CG that has no process.  Our proposals must strike a balance between:
>>   * The potential severity of the danger.
>>   * The likelihood of the danger (agreed chair selection mitigates this danger).
> it isn't just chair selection, it is that the group can replace the chair any time the group wants to.
>>   * The likelihood a potential participant would be aware of these dangers without our warning.
>>   * The impact to the CG which has been tagged with the warning (this impact is mitigated by the ease of the solution).
>> Any  other considerations?
> The warning should not impose new restrictions on when the W3C can act.  (e.g. W3C saying the chair is permitted to do various bad behaviors)
> The warning should not over promise what a charter can do  (given the process says the chair can change the charter; and it is still the W3C decision to enforce it)
> The proposed ability for the group to replace the chair any time it wants to, on the other hand, doesn't depend on anyone except the group itself.
> How about:
> "This group does not have a Charter that describes its scope, deliverables, operational rules and decision making process.  In order to enable a wide variety of styles of groups, W3C imposes relatively little structure on how the Chair manages a group (see the Process).  Without a Charter, it may be unclear how the group operates or the Chair could change how the group operates without warning.  W3C strongly encourages groups to operate under a written Charter.  However, even with a Charter, participants should be aware that the Process currently allows the Chair to change the Charters after notifying the group of the change."

I'm fine with that text, but find the last sentence unnecessary. I would be ok with "See the process for more information about operational agreements."


Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:39:35 UTC

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