Re: Help with W3C BLM statement

On 02/09/2020 03:15, Florian Rivoal wrote:
[...]

>> On Sep 2, 2020, at 6:16, Tobie Langel <tobie@unlockopen.com 
>> <mailto:tobie@unlockopen.com>> wrote:
>>
>> […]
>>
>> During that process, a formal objection was made[2]. There were also 
>> two change suggestions[3] (that I made) which weren't formal 
>> objections (i.e. the IDCG can choose whether to incorporate those 
>> suggestions or not).
> 
> No, the IDCG cannot chose. It can have an opinion as to whether it is a 
> good idea to do so, but it doesn't decide. The Director does. More 
> details below. The difference between the F.O. and your comments is that 
> the Director *must* consider the F.O., but can ignore the non-F.O. 
> comments; everything else is the same.
> 
>> *NEXT STEPS
>> *The IDCG now has to review this formal objection and the change 
>> suggestions.
> 
> Actually, no. The Director has to, not IDCG. It is good form for the 
> Director to ask the IDCG what it thinks of any change he might want to 
> make or not make to the text, and it is expected that the IDCG would 
> want to respond to such a question, but neither is an actual requirement.

I think perhaps you read this from the point of view of a Process 
editor, whereas it was intended to be a more informal description. The 
IDCG has been asked by the Director's representative to review the 
proposal, and as such that is what it has to do now - not as a point of 
Process but as a matter of courtesy.

> 
>> This process has already started on the mailing list[4].
>>
>> THE IDCG has the following options:
>>
>> 1. it can make substantial changes to the statement which would 
>> retrigger the 4 week review process again, and potentially allow for 
>> more objections (for example on the ground of the statement coming too 
>> late), or
>> 2. it can incorporate the changes proposed by the objector, or
>> 3. it can decide to submit the statement as is and request that the 
>> Director override the objection.
>>
>> In all cases the IDCG can make non-substantial changes to the language 
>> without retriggering a review.
> 
> The IDCG at this point has no formal list of options. Only the Director 
> does. Of course, if the Director asks a question to the IDCG, the IDCG 
> has a choice about how to respond, but this response isn't bound to a 
> set of options defined in the Process.

Again, I think the intent of this was to outline the different ways the 
IDCG could respond to the request from the director's representative.

> 
> Ralph acting on behalf of the Director has asked the IDCG what it 
> thought about a possible change. The IDCG can respond anything it wants 
> to that question (including not responding). None of these answers will 
> do anything on their own, other than informing the judgement of the 
> Director. And he may (or not, up to him) take the deliberations of IDCG 
> into account as much as the official answer.
> 
> As for the options that the Director has, he
> 
>> /must/ identify any Formal Objections.
> 
> and he has a choice of:
>>
>>  1. The proposal is approved, possibly with minor changes integrated.
>>  2. The proposal is approved, possibly with substantive changes
>>     <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#substantive-change> integrated.
>>     In this case the Director's announcement /must/ include rationale
>>     for the decision to advance the document despite the proposal for
>>     a substantive change.
>>  3. The proposal is returned for additional work, with a request to
>>     the initiator to formally address
>>     <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#formal-address> certain
>>     issues.
>>  4. The proposal is rejected.
> He could theoretically do something else, since the process says the 
> following about the 4 options listed above (note the word "generally"), 
> but I don't expect that to happen:
> 
>> This W3C decision 
>> <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#def-w3c-decision> is 
>> generally one of the following:
> 
> Note that these rules *don't require* asking or abiding by anybody's 
> opinion, even though skipping talking to people, especially in the 
> presence of a formal objection, would be quite reckless.
> 
> If, by talking both to the IDCG and the objector, the Director 
> identifies a consensual solution to the problem, I would expect him, 
> after having verified with other people who voted in the AC ballot that 
> they too were OK with it, to take option 2, and to publish the modified 
> document. This *does not* require an additional 4 week AC review, 
> regardless of whether any change that the Director chooses to apply 
> comes from the objector, IDCG, himself, or someone else. It's still the 
> Director's choice to decide what to do though, although it would be 
> highly unexpected for him to do anything else than going by the 
> consensus when there is one. But I'll point out that here too, since the 
> process does't say, it's his call to decide "consensus of who". My 
> understanding of the current Team policies is that it is *not* consensus 
> of the proposers + objector, but of everybody who participated in the AC 
> Review (which might not include all of IDCG, since it's a CG and may 
> contain non-members, or non-AC-Reps employees of members).
> 
> If consensus cannot be found, the Director may still take any of the 4 
> options above, including publishing as is, publishing with the addition 
> proposed by the objector, publishing with some other phrasing the 
> Director would think it good, sending it back to work (which would end 
> up requiring another 4 week AC review once ready), or shutting down the 
> whole thing.

I think the aim of Tobie's email was to explain the essentials of what 
we hope Kim can help with, without getting into the complexity of the 
Process - which arguably does not change what we need help with at this 
point.



Léonie.



> 
> —Florian

-- 
Director @TetraLogical
https://tetralogical.com

Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2020 06:53:11 UTC