Re: Editing TF process?

Thank you for the great advice, Chaals.

I think we're moving back to the right track as you suggested, and
your words helped me to understand what we're trying is the right
track.

Thank you again!

/koji

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile
<chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> 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 14:08:59 UTC