Re: Help with W3C BLM statement

On 9/2/2020 7:33 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
>> On Sep 2, 2020, at 15:52, Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com 
>> <mailto:lwatson@tetralogical.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> […]
>
>> 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 -
>
> I understand that. My goal isn't to litigate procedural details, but 
> to clarify which assumptions and constraints we're operating under. In 
> particular, the following points seem important:
>
> 1. "What should we do?" doesn't necessarily get the same answer when 
> you are judge vs when you are a party to the dispute. It's good to 
> make clear here who is deciding and who is giving opinions, who needs 
> to make sure their point is heard vs who needs to be fair and impartial.
>
> 2. Tobie said "substantial changes to the statement [...] would 
> retrigger the 4 week review process again", you have made a similar 
> statements[1], and various statements made in this group seems to be 
> operating under that premise. But that's not true: once an AC Review 
> has concluded (which it has) the director can make changes without any 
> Process-imposed delay. If an argument against making certain changes 
> is that they might be good but they're not worth another 4 weeks, then 
> that argument isn't valid, as 4 more weeks isn't an actual requirement.

My interpretation of Tobie was as follows.  If IDCG recommends 
substantial changes to the statement that in the view of the Director 
could potentially cause reviewers to modify their vote, it would 
retrigger another 4 week review process.

If that is the correct interpretation of Tobie's remarks, then I think 
his remarks are correct.

>
> 3. In the recent past, responses to comments made on this exact topic 
> [2] have made it look as if this group was the decider even though it 
> was not, and which confused the person who had made the comment and 
> others, including members of the w3c staff, who then made changes to 
> the voting mechanism[3], causing an issue to be raised to the advisory 
> board [4], after which the changes to the voting mechanism needed to 
> be back tracked[5]. I think it's good to be clear what rules we're 
> operating under.
>
>>  which arguably does not change what we need help with at this point.
>
> I did think it had a good chance of actually changing the actual 
> advice we'd get, (or how that advice was used), which I why I thought 
> this was worth raising.
>
> —Florian
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/25#issuecomment-661949236
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/25
> [3] 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2020JulSep/0011.html
> [4] https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/43
> [5] 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2020JulSep/0012.html