Re: Editing TF process?

Thank you Chaals, this is very helpful and clear.

One question: these are clear for WG, but I suppose we'll need
something to determine if an issue is whether "we happily agree on" or
not. If it turns not, go to WG resolutions either by CfC or make a
minutes with "Resolution"s. That's clear now for me, thank you.

Issues are usually discussed in github issues or F2F, and not everyone
is tracking every issue. I wish, if it's a rather big decision, even
if people in the issue discussion or F2F seems to be happy, I wish
clearer communication to the TF to double-check if "we really happily
agree on" or not.

For that, I'm wondering if sending CfC to TF ML and using the similar
process as WG would be good. If any objections, we can raise it to WG
resolutions. If no objections, we can consider "we happily agreed on
it".

What do you think? Is it overkill? Are there anything we can learn
from other TF?

/koji


On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile
<chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:44:52 +0200, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I merely remember, if I'm not mistaken, there were some discussions
>> that we don't want to make "decisions" at F2F, because this TF has
>> several Invited Experts and not all can make every F2F.
>>
>> I liked that, but I don't think we have discussed how then we would
>> make "decisions".
>>
>> Can we discuss and set our process for what is, say, consensus for
>> this TF, how to build it, what kind of things would need WG
>> resolutions, and so forth?
>
>
> We're part of the Web Platform working group, and the formal decision policy
> is written in the charter:
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/webplatform-charter.html#decisions>
> That points to the Work Mode documents, which you should read:
> <https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/WorkMode.md> (That
> document can be changed if the Group makes a decision to do so :) ).
>
> Things that need WG resolutions are "the things we don't just happily agree
> on" - the goal is that we create obvious consensus as we go… but of course
> it doesn't always work out like that.
>
> We can make decisions by either
> 1. Call for Consensus - send an email, giving a week or so, and asking for a
> "yes/no" answer on a particular question.
> 2. To make a decision in a meeting we record it as a Resolution, and send
> the minutes to the Web Platform admin list. People have 10 days to object -
> e.g. if they weren't at the meeting, and if they don't, it is a decision.
>
> In general these should be technical decisions. Background philosophy, like
> "should we only allow people to type Cyrillic" or "should we determine
> error-handling for everything" is legitimate for debate, but formal
> decisions should be on things where this meets testable reality, like "if
> someone tries to type Cyrillic, throw" or "error X must be dealt with in the
> following way…"
>
> Does that give enough of a framework? Do you think we need more formality
> within the TF?
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> (I'm one of the chairs of the WG, so more formally, decisions are what I and
> my co-chairs announce they are, subject to the constraints from our charter
> and the process as noted above).
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 11:34:34 UTC