Charter Change should not be avoided if needed (was: 72 hour call for consensus ­ election of new PBG Steering Committee slate)

Dear Liisa and al.,

I thought that Dave Cramer, Daniel Glazman and Tzviya made it already clear
that taking the time to revise the charter is a good use of our time

I definitely support this point and want to keep the gap between the
charter and the execution as thin as possible

*Liisa, do you need more details ?*

Mohamed

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa <
lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> wrote:

> Mohamed-
>
>
>
> Just a point of clarification- there is no exclusion of W3C Staff. Bill
> McCoy and Ivan Herman are the W3C staff assigned to the publishing@W3C
> work and are both very instrumental to ensuring that we are following the
> processes and moving the work forward. They are both ex officio members of
> the proposed Steering Committee and we can spell that out if it helps
> clarify.
>
>
>
> What changes to the charter would you like to see?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> Liisa McCloy-Kelley
>
> Co-Chair, W3C Publishing Business Group
>
>
>
> VP, Director Ebook Product Development & Innovation
>
> Penguin Random House
>
> lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<innovimax@gmail.com> on behalf of Innovimax W3C <
> innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, February 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM
> *To: *Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
> *Cc: *Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, 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>
> *Subject: *Re: 72 hour call for consensus ­ election of new PBG Steering
> Committee slate
>
>
>
> +10 to Daniel here
>
>
>
> Hickjacking the process, whatever the reason, proves always to be a very
> bad idea in the long run, and I plan for a long run of this work, now here
> at the W3C
>
>
>
> As Daniel pointed out, I would STRONGLY suggest to reconsider the fact
> that there is NO W3C STAFF as co-chairs
>
>
>
> W3C has a huge value and its STAFF is definitely part of it
>
>
>
> Furthermore, it is always a good use of our time to revise a suboptimal
> charter
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Mohamed
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-
> innovations.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Innovimax SARL
> Consulting, Training & XML Development
> 9, impasse des Orteaux
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=9,+impasse+des+Orteaux+%0D+75020+Paris&entry=gmail&source=g>
> 75020 Paris
> Tel : +33 9 52 475787 <+33%209%2052%2047%2057%2087>
> Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 <+33%201%2043%2056%2017%2046>
> http://www.innovimax.fr
> RCS Paris 488.018.631
> SARL au capital de 10.000 €
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €