RE: Help with W3C BLM statement

Hi Friends,

I just want to point out that maybe it’s not the best idea to bombard Kim, who has graciously agreed to review our statement, with the details of our process. Perhaps we should have this discussion somewhere else?

Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Principal
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 8:59 AM
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>; Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
Cc: Tobie Langel <tobie@unlockopen.com>; Community@kimcrayton.com; Inclusion and Diversity Community Group <public-idcg@w3.org>
Subject: 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