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

Liisa,


> So is it *just* a matter of changing the Process section to more
accurately reflect the proposal and the way we are working now?

(emphasize is mine)


Unless mistaken, the Process section is currently half of the current
charter

So I wouldn't underestimate this change and make it trivial pinpointing

Cheers

Mohamed

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:10 PM, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa <
lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com> wrote:

> Mohamed-
>
>
>
> As a new Co-Chair of the Business Group and a member of the IDPF board
> that became the original Steering Committee, I am trying very hard to
> understand what in the charter people would like to see revised. I think we
> all agree we want to keep the charter and the execution thin.
>
>
>
> But as of yet, there have been no specific proposed changes in this
> dialogue.
>
>
>
> For me, much of the charter reflects the interim state of when the IDPF
> first joined the W3C and describes how we were planning to get this work
> and the groups around it launched. But the scope of the charter is still
> very much appropriate.
>
>
>
> So is it just a matter of changing the Process section to more accurately
> reflect the proposal and the way we are working now?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
>
>
> Liisa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<innovimax@gmail.com> on behalf of Innovimax W3C <
> innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, February 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM
> *To: *"McCloy-Kelley, Liisa" <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>
> *Cc: *Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Dave
> Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>, "
> public-publishingbg@w3.org" <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, Rick Johnson <
> rick.johnson@ingramcontent.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bill McCoy <
> bmccoy@w3.org>
> *Subject: *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
> <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 €