Re: Re 2: Proposal for charter changes, in view of the formal objections by Vivliostyle & Disruptive Innovation

Le 26/04/2017 à 16:21, Daniel Glazman a écrit :

> Er... Sorry, but I don't completely understand. There are, according to
> process, 4 possible outcomes for a review:
> 1. approved, modulo minor changes
> 2. approved, modulo substantive changes and Director's rationale
> 3. returned for more work
> 4. rejected
> None of these allow an extra document transmitted to the AC in the
> middle of the formal Review. W3M already did that several times in
> the past and I *loudly* complained about it. In the case of the CSS
> WG, it led to a MAJOR catastrophe and several CSS WG members officially
> complained. I strongly disagree with that approach, that is, again, not
> allowed by the Process. Please let the Review finish, aggregate reviews,
> make a proposal to the Director and let him make his choice.

Just to be clearer, a Review is a vote on one precise set of Documents.
The Membership should be able to read the reviews on that set *at any
time* without interference of extra documents. If you send your "shadow
charter" to the Membership, it will influence forthcoming reviews that
could say "I had comments but this is addressed by the Shadow Charter".

This is CLEARLY wrong and bad:

1. it decreases the number of reviews sharing same negative opinion

2. it adds confusion about the document being reviewed; is it
   the original one or the shadow charter?

3. it does not follow the Process

Again, I firmly disagree with your proposal here, in particular when
there are formal objections. Sending an extra document during the Review
changes the condition of the Review. I will appeal (section 7.2) if
that happens, sorry.


Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 15:14:37 UTC