Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG

I've seen them go both ways. If everything appears on track and nothing
substantive is changing except for the date through which the group is
chartered, I've seen plenty such extensions be non-events. If people think
substantive changes are required (such as the WebApps rechartering), it can
get more involved. It tends to be a function of the changes proposed.

-Ian

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Thanks.  A brief follow-up: Are working group charter renewals usually a
> routine, rubber-stamp procedure?  Or are they used to revisit a group's
> scope and process?
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> The current charter is through 31 July 2012. My crystal ball is
> notoriously inaccurate (sadly), but I personally don't believe the spec
> will be in "Rec" state by 31 July. Thus, I had assumed there would be a
> re-chartering.
>
> I realize the current milestone specifies that we should be at CR in
> April, PR in May, and Rec in June, but given my experience I personally
> believe that to be unlikely, which I believe I have stated previously.
>
> -Ian
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>>
>> Clarifying question: Has there been some discussion of rechartering the
>> group?  Or are you just referring to what you think is necessary to
>> implement the new process?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>>
>> I see the discussion of the process, I also see concerns. I don't see any
>> resolution recorded or any vote.
>>
>> I will also note that the charter of this group specifically says
>>
>> "As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will seek
>> to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a question
>> and observes dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the
>> Chair should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any
>> objections, and move on.
>>
>> This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes of the W3C
>> Process Document and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process
>> Document requires."
>>
>> Section 3.4 of the W3C process document is quite specific about voting
>> requirements, and our charter specifically states no procedure beyond what
>> the W3C process document requires are adopted by the group.
>>
>> This seems like a significant change to the charter of the group which
>> should wait for the rechartering discussion.
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Discussion of the new process, with links to Matthias' slides and
>>> Matthias' conclusion that we have agreement are in the Process section of
>>> the minutes from January 26th.
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-dnt-minutes.html#item01
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>>>
>>> Matthias,
>>>
>>> Can you please point to a point in the minutes of the Brussels f2f where
>>> this policy was agreed upon?
>>>
>>> -Ian
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Team,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> we've managed to put the revised decision process in writing:
>>>>  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/decision-policy.html
>>>>
>>>> This process has been agreed upon at our Brussels meeting and we
>>>> started using it in the meantime.
>>>>
>>>> If you have questions, do not hesitate to drop us a line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> matthias
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>