New proposed Consensus procedures Re: PF Rejects TF's Work/Consensus CFC [Was: Call for Consensus: Procedure updates]

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:27:51 +0100, Paul Cotton  
<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Status?

Attached is the new proposal. We'll discuss it today, and hopefully have a  
Call for Consensus on it through next week.

cheers

Chaals

> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:47 PM
> To: Paul Cotton; Janina Sajka
> Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats; Sam Ruby  
> (rubys@intertwingly.net)
> Subject: Re: PF Rejects TF's Work/Consensus CFC [Was: Call for  
> Consensus: Procedure updates]
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 03:50:20 +0100, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
> wrote:
>
>> After more than a month when we have been unable to get the three TF
>> facilitators into a discussion, we were able to make progress on this
>> item at the TF Facilitators call Monday. We expect to have language
>> that we believe will be acceptable to PF, and we hope to the HTML-WG
>> as well, in a few days. Of course it will need to be approved first in  
>> the TF.
>
> Yeah, I need ten minutes to edit the document and propose it. Then a  
> week for it to be accepted, and then hopefully we turn it over to you  
> and PF and we're all happy this time.
>
> cheers
>
>> Janina
>>
>> Paul Cotton writes:
>>> What is the status of this CfC?  I cannot find any record of this
>>> being resolved.
>>>
>>> The HTML WG CfC on this item has been on hold since Aug 8:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Aug/0014.ht
>>> ml
>>>
>>> /paulc
>>> HTML WG co-chair
>>>
>>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:53 AM
>>> To: Charles McCathie Nevile
>>> Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
>>> Subject: Re: PF Rejects TF's Work/Consensus CFC [Was: Call for
>>> Consensus: Procedure updates]
>>>
>>> Charles:
>>>
>>> Responding with my best effort at TF Facilitator hat off, and PF
>>> Chair hat on ...
>>>
>>> As PF has not further discussed this topic, my comments represent my
>>> sense of PF's viewpoint. Also, please note that PF does not meet
>>> again until 4 September.
>>>
>>> Remaining comments in line below ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Nevile writes:
>>> > Dear PF group,
>>> >
>>> > This is an explanation followed by a request for comment, since
>>> > moving forward without understanding what the PF group will or
>>> > won't object to seems like a waste of everyone's time...
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:41:12 +0400, Janina Sajka
>>> > <janina@rednote.net>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >Colleagues:
>>> > >
>>> > >The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group considered approval of
>>> > >the HTML-A11Y Task Force CFC referenced below during its regular
>>> > >teleconference on 7 August. Discussion of this item during the PF
>>> > >teleconference is logged at:
>>> > >
>>> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2013Aug/0014.html
>>> > >
>>> > >In addition a CFC for the PFWG on this question was posted at:
>>> > >
>>> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2013Aug/0011.html
>>> > >
>>> > >Disposition:
>>> > >
>>> > >The PFWG does not agree to the Work Statement and Consensus Policy
>>> > >as submitted.
>>> >
>>> > OK.
>>> >
>>> > >PF notes that the role of teleconferences in the HTML-A11Y Task
>>> > >Force is not discussed in these documents. Specifically, the role
>>> > >of resolutions, actions and comments logged during teleconference
>>> > >discussions is not explained as these do, or do not pertain to
>>> reaching TF consensus.
>>> > >
>>> > >* PF notes that the TF's two sponsoring organizations, the PFWG
>>> > >* and the HTML-WG have different expectations and policies
>>> > >* regarding teleconferences with respect to achieving WG
>>> > >consensus. For this reason alone PF believes the role of
>>> > >teleconferences in TF deliberations should be explictly described.
>>> >
>>> > OK.
>>> >
>>> > >* PF further notes that TF teleconferences have customarily
>>> > >* formally logged resolutions following teleconference discussion
>>> > >* whenever a documented consensus position of the TF was desired.
>>> > >* These resolutions were, in turn, also confirmed either by email
>>> > >* CFC or WBS survey. This has been TF practice since the TF's
>>> > >* inception. PF believes the TF's intention in this regard going
>>> > >* forward should be explicitly stated.
>>> >
>>> > The policy states that resolutions will be reached by a call for
>>> > consensus on email. Which means that a teleconference is not
>>> > sufficient to produce a formal resolution.
>>> >
>>> I believe our understanding is that it has never been sufficient. I
>>> don't believe we're asking for a change in that respect.
>>>
>>> > There is no reason not to start a Call for Consensus based on a
>>> > proposal made in a teleconference.
>>>
>>> OK, but this is not documented in the proposed Decision Policy.
>>>
>>> > While the TF may have made
>>> > resolutions in teleconferences and confirmed them via CfC, this is
>>> > not actually in line with the original decision policy, which
>>> > required a teleconference to adopt a draft resolution after it had
>>> > been made available, but still required a subsequent call for
>>> > consensus as proposed in the current document.
>>> >
>>> It is indeed the case that not all resolutions adopted by TF
>>> teleconferences in the past were preceded by draft resolutions
>>> conveyed by email, it is also not true that teleconference
>>> resolutions never followed email or WBS canvasing. In fact, on some
>>> more strongly contested points the teleconference only confirmed and
>>> voted a resolution following on email or WBS surveys.
>>>
>>> I believe the main concern for PF here is that it be explicitly
>>> acknowledged that issues on which a formal consensus is developed
>>> include the opportunity for people to discuss the issue directly with
>>> one another via teleconference, or in face to face meeting, if such
>>> is scheduled while a consensus is being formally sought and  
>>> articulated.
>>>
>>> In other words, I believe PF would not want to see the TF declare a
>>> consensus without having calendered the issue in question as an
>>> agendum for a teleconference or face to face discussion as part of
>>> the CFC process.
>>>
>>> I don't believe PF has any concern as to how the CFC is initiated,
>>> whether in a teleconference or not.
>>>
>>> > >* Without explicit statements regarding the role of the
>>> > >* teleconference in TF decisioning, it is unclear to PF whether
>>> > >* objections, and other comments logged during teleconferences,
>>> > >* are to be regarded as comments on a CFC.
>>> >
>>> > Comments logged in minutes sent to the mailing list are formal
>>> > comments to the TF, and therefore where relevant to a CfC are
>>> > formal comments on that CfC.
>>> >
>>> > I will add a note to this effect in the document we propose.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Still with PF hat on, I don't believe PF has a position on this one
>>> way or the other. However, resuming my TF hat, I don't believe
>>> there's yet a clear consensus on this in the TF.
>>>
>>> And, if there's going to be provision for including comments captured
>>> by a scribe during teleconference meetings, it will then be necessary
>>> to clearly state how edits are to be made and approved. Does the TF
>>> want that level of formalism in its "draft" minutes?
>>>
>>>
>>> > >The PF requests the TF to add appropriate language to explain the
>>> > >role of its teleconferences in its decisioning process with specific
>>> > >reference to the above points.
>>> >
>>> > Please respond explaining whether we need to explicitly say that
>>> > teleconferences, face to face meetings (and other gatherings or
>>> > processes apart from the web-based survey or call directly to the
>>> > mailing list) do not have the power to make binding resolutions, or
>>> > whether the document is clear enough as is.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Back to PF hat ...
>>>
>>> Hopefully, my comments above will help. But, to restate ...
>>>
>>> PF would be unlikely to agree that binding resolutions could be
>>> conducted with consideration during a teleconference or face to face
>>> meeting. in other words, PF is objecting to the possibility that a
>>> binding resolution could be made exclusively by email or WBS.
>>>
>>> Janina
>>>
>>>
>>> > >Janina Sajka, Chair
>>> > >Protocols and Formats WG
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >Charles Nevile writes:
>>> > >>On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:29:03 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile
>>> > >><chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>This is a call for consensus on the proposal
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>The Task Force wishes to adopt the work statement at
>>> > >>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-tf-draft.html and the  
>>> decision-making
>>> > >>>procedures proposed at
>>> >  
>>> >>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jun/att-00
>>> > >>>85/consensus-procedures.html
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>Silence will be taken as assent, but positive responses are
>>> > >>>preferred. Please reply before midnight in the last time zone, on
>>> > >>>Monday July 29.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>This call has passed. We will therefore move through the processof
>>> > >>adopting the new procedures.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>cheers
>>> > >>
>>> > >>Chaals
>>> > >>
>>> > >>--
>>> > >>Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office,
>>> Yandex
>>> > >>      chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office,
>>> Yandex
>>> >       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200
>>>    sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>>>   Email: janina@rednote.net
>>>
>>> Linux Foundation Fellow
>>> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org
>>>
>>> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>>> Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>>>  Indie UI   http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com