- From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:15:12 +0200
- To: "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-editing-tf <public-editing-tf@w3.org>
Hi Koji, On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:33:46 +0200, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Chaals, this is very helpful and clear. Great. > 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? I think this is a good practice. It doesn't need to be as formal as a CfC unless the rest of the TF wants that, but an email to the TF list saying what is proposed will be helpful to check if we really do agree. If there is a proposed decision we *think* has wider implications, or that some people will be unhappy about but might not read the thread, it is better to let them know, have the full discussion, and get to a real agreement than make a decision "under the radar", only to find a year later that we have to go back over it. The modern W3C process actually encourages us to do that, asking to get "wide review" early... cheers Chaals > /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 -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 12:15:50 UTC