Re: 72 hour call for consensus ­ election of new PBG Steering Committee slate

+1 to the candidates.

I, too, am concerned about the process. But maybe we need to experiment a
little bit to figure out what works. We inherited this somewhat unusual
arrangement due to the merger. So far we've learned that separate BG and SC
calls aren't perhaps the best use of our time, but coordinating the various
groups is useful. So we're trying to find a way to do that. But we really
should change the charter(s) if we're going to change how we organize the
work.

Dave

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Daniel Glazman <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> A very clear -1 for me:
>
>   - the chairs of the CG would be members of the SC that, per Charter,
>     "is empowered to take any action on behalf of the BG" that itself
>     decides which specs and drafts are allowed in the CG. With such an
>     organization, chairs _could_ become leaders, and W3C has always,
>     in its whole history, carefully avoided that possibility, *even*
>     hypothetical. We. Just. Don't. Do. That. Ever.
>
>   - not a single W3C (and I mean the prior-to-merger W3C) Staff
>
>   - the charter says "each class shall be elected to two-year terms";
>     you're proposing 1 year, and that's against the Charter.
>
>   - this is not an election, there should have been consensus to amend
>     the BG Charter's prose about the SC first. That's easy and doable
>     in very little time. The current SC can even decide it!!!
>
>   - since the seats are "to be considered resigned if (..) chair/lead
>     responsibilities change", it feels and smells much more like a
>     liaison committee. This is clearly not the spirit of the Charter
>     that imposes no such constraint. And the liaison committee already
>     exists, it's the BG; not its SC.
>     Please note all these Chairs are already supposed to liaise, per the
>     three Charters.
>
>   - you said "Strategic decisions will be taken in the PBG as a whole,
>     not by the SC". Wait. Does it mean the Charter provision that reads
>     "is empowered to take any action on behalf of the BG" is dropped?
>     If yes, then the Charter MUST be amended and you CANNOT run this
>     so-called election. If no, please clarify the decisions the SC can
>     still make on behalf of the BG and the charter SHOULD be amended.
>
> Even if I see the good will behind the proposal, it feels far too much
> like a hacky workaround. The BG has a Charter, like it or not, and the
> proposal just ignores it too deeply, again.
>
> Conclusion:
>
>   1. this "election" is not compliant to the Charter, even if decided
>      by consensus. It seems to me the aforementioned consensus has
>      decided parts of the Charter are not practical any more, so...
>
>   2. ...amend the Charter and kill the SC
>
>   3. add to the Charter that all the Chairs of the CG and WG are "de
>      facto" members of the BG during their chairmanships (run this
>      through AC-Reps because of Patent policy but I suspect it won't be
>      a problem) and make BG, task forces, WG and CG chairs formally
>      liaise inside the BG.
>
>   4. remove the provision that gives the BG the right to decide what the
>      CG publishes or not
>
> </Daniel>
>
>