- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 09:10:22 +0100
- To: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>
- Cc: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>, "public-publishingbg@w3.org" <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, W3C Team Digital Publishing <team-dig-publishing@w3.org>, "McCloy-Kelley, Liisa" <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>, Rick Johnson <rick.johnson@ingramcontent.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>
Le 02/02/2018 à 19:10, Dave Cramer a écrit :
> +1 to the candidates.
Yes. I was not commenting on the candidates themselves, who all
have full legitimacy for the role (although they are not the only
ones).
I am much, much more circumspect about the need to have a SC
at all. I was already quite concerned about it before, but I am
now thinking the existence of the SC is a critical issue. In
particular, the W3C CG and BG Process explicitly reads:
- (Groups) must be fair and must not unreasonably favor or
discriminate against any group participant or their employer.
- (Groups) must not conflict with (..) this Community and Business
Group Process
In W3C space, "must" and "must not" are strong words.
A Steering Committee, allowed to take any action on behalf of the BG,
*is* favoring some participants over the other ones. It is then a
violation of the Process and this is forbidden, period. A deep
clarification through a Charter amendment is absolutely needed.
> But we really should change the charter(s) if we're going to
> change how we organize the work.
The fact the BG violates so blatantly its own Charter or its Process
on multiple counts, even out of good will, is a strong concern to me. I
will carefully review the implications of a positive decision if that
happens without Charter amendment; I'm not excluding an official
response based on W3C Process and W3C Business Groups Process.
To be even clearer, experiments and pragmatism are *always* good. I
spent the 7.5 years of my CSS WG chairmanship calling for more
pragmatism. But the BG gave itself an operating process. It kept it
despite of some negative feedback on the Charter before the group
started operating, feedback that was *exactly* in the scope of the
current discussion. I appreciate the fact there is now a consensus to
change it; but do it by the rules (ie. amending the Charter) or don't do
it.
I am also urging this Group to start caring more about its W3C context.
It just cannot continue making decisions as if there were no Process or
Charter *governing* them. Thank you.
</Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 3 February 2018 08:10:54 UTC