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

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.

There is no reason not to start a Call for Consensus based on a proposal  
made in a teleconference. 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.

> * 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.

> 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.

> 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-0085/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

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 06:28:12 UTC