Re: Charter Change should not be avoided if needed

Daniel-

Thanks for your detailed notes and your interest in what sounds like essentially rewriting much of the charter. 

Can you help me understand your opinion on two things?

1- Why do you say “the SC has to be deeply reformed or better, dropped” – what is wrong with having a steering committee that is a liaison group that ensures the work is coordinated? 
2- When you say “- I suggest to make EPUB3 CG chairs and PubWG chairs de facto members of the BG   - I suggest to make them formally liaise with and in the BG, through its Charter, and with W3C Staff in the loop.” Why do you think that isn’t already the case? 

I’m not trying to pick a fight. I’m just trying to understand your position and your understanding of how the Business Group has been working. 

I’m a new co-chair, trying to do right by the group and also trying to be true to some of the agreement that we had when initially forming the business group around making it a less formal environment that was an easier on-ramp for people into the W3C method of working. That doesn’t mean that every W3C rule gets ignored or that process shouldn’t be followed. It does mean that we give people a break and don’t scare them away and maybe we use Google Docs for collecting shared collaboration rather than GitHub. 

Thanks again!

Liisa



On 2/5/18, 12:15 PM, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

    Le 05/02/2018 à 17:10, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa a écrit :
    
    > 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.
    
    I have no expectation of that kind ; I want a Charter that allows work
    and execution, in a workable organization scheme. Thinner the better,
    why not. But if we need thickness to have excellence, so be it.
    
    > But as of yet, there have been no specific proposed changes in this
    > dialogue.
    
    Really? I highlighted in my last messages several excerpts of the
    Charter that are either:
    
      - blatantly violating the W3C Business Groups Process
      - raising a unprecedented (in W3C space) governance issue for the CG
      - apparently triggering a change consensus in the BG
    
    All the very concrete following proposals were also made:
    
      - the SC has to be deeply reformed or better, dropped. I think
        Murata-san has the same opinion but I'll defer to him on that one.
      - the handhold on the EPUB3 CG must be dropped. The prose in the
        Scope section that reads "The EPUB 3 Community Group requests
        approval from the Publishing Business Group for publication of all
        CG specifications other than Editor's Drafts" must be dropped.
      - I suggest to make EPUB3 CG chairs and PubWG chairs de facto members
        of the BG
      - I suggest to make them formally liaise with and in the BG, through
        its Charter, and with W3C Staff in the loop.
    
    I think the above easily counters your "no specific proposed changes".
    
    Furthermore:
    
      - I suggest to add an item that reads the BG can immediately modify
        its Charter through membership consensus w/o formal objection.
      - I suggest to adhere more to W3C Process and W3C common practice.
        The BG does *NOT* adhere to them at the time being.
    
    > 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
    
    No. The Charter is the Law of the BG, it *governs* the BG until it is
    amended. It's like a Standard: a Standard is a Standard until a new
    Standard that supersedes the old one is published. The BG *cannot* work
    around it, period. The current "election" and the proposed terms are
    a workaround. They're forbidden by the Charter. Conclusion: amend the
    Charter.
    
    > So is it just a matter of changing the Process section to more
    > accurately reflect the proposal and the way we are working now?
    
    As I said above, the Scope section should be changed too.
    
    </Daniel>

Received on Monday, 5 February 2018 17:40:14 UTC