Re: Path forward... (RESPONSE REQUESTED)

Aleecia,  

I would propose a friendly clarification to the deadline extension option (#1).  If I understand the chairs' process, they will only consider timely amendments to the June Draft, and they will not consider amendments that reflect the DAA Proposal.

I would also suggest a friendly amendment to the decision structure.  We have operated with the understanding that it would require an "affirmative decision" to extend the deadline.  Put differently, if the group cannot agree on a viable path forwards (#1 or #2), then our deadline should remain in place (#3).

Best,
Jonathan


On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:

> Hi Rigo,
>  
> I think our options under W3C process are the following:
> 1. Extend the deadline for the July Last Call. It was a deadline we set for ourselves; we can change it. We are chartered for long enough. It is not the first time we've missed a deadline, nor is TPWG the first group to miss LC. I suggested this and we discussed doing so with a straw poll about a month ago. The result was split. In the eyes of the co-chair (Peter) there was not clear consensus to postpone at the time, with several people saying they might change their minds if it became apparent we could not hit July. Since then, things have changed; we have a new basis draft with an interesting procedural history. This seems like a good moment to revisit.
> 2. Publish the current draft as-is and call it a Last Call document, even with many documented open issues. The idea here would be to gather more feedback from the larger world as we continue our work to close open issues. We would hit our July deadline even if not quite the way we had hoped, with much more work to do. As I recall, the HTML WG does something roughly similar.  
> 3. Decide as a group that we are done, publish three notes, and end-of-life the TPWG. I hear support for this option from several key factions, but I also hear a strong commitment to continue work from some rather important stakeholders too. There is also the surround-sound concern that DNT will exist with or without W3C, and if you don't like it here various Plan Bs will be even less to your liking, for everyone involved. All of these discussions have been tedious back room chatter. Let's drag it out into the sunlight and see what we have.
>  
> Am I missing any options, or is this the decision space?
>  
> To be concrete, my proposal is we (a) discuss all three possibilities, (b) hold a straw poll on the call tomorrow to see if there is obvious consensus for one of these three paths, or at the very least see if we can eliminate one of the options as clearly not having support, and (c) if necessary, move to a formal vote a week from now. By formal vote, I mean straight up or down, one vote per organization, majority (rather than consensus) trumps.  
>  
> Basically, I'm tired of process discussions. I'd like a clear group decision and that's it. If we're doing this, great, let's get it done. If we're not, so be it, let's be done.  
>  
> Aleecia
>  
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org (mailto:rigo@w3.org)> wrote:
>  
> > Chris,  
> >  
> > just to prepare the clarification discussion tomorrow (see agenda):  
> >  
> > On Tuesday 23 July 2013 17:26:09 Chris Mejia wrote:
> > > I echo Alan's concern on process. In Sunnyvale, as I supported the
> > > approach to "commit to a hard deadline and then re-evaluate that
> > > deadline if it became apparent that we were going to miss it," I and
> > > others emphasized that it would have to be a working group decision
> > > to extend— that it would not be at the sole discretion of the
> > > co-chairs nor W3C staff to extend on their own accord.  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > I do not understand your concern here. Do you want to extend the 26 July  
> > deadline for change proposals? What is your very concrete suggestion?  
> >  
> >  
> > > At that time,
> > > co-chairs and staff supported my stated position, which I think was a
> > > responsible choice. But now it seems that you are once again veering
> > > away from W3C process and veering away from your commitment to the
> > > working group to discuss extension before unilaterally making the
> > > choice for us.  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > What extension? If you want an extension, please clearly identify and  
> > justify. I don't think chairs and W3C staff just make arbitrary  
> > decisions on their own. Ok, sometimes it feels like it, but I really  
> > don't think they do.  
> >  
> > > From the emails this week, it seems quite obvious
> > > that that TPWG (both camps) want to have a discussion on processing
> > > moving forward on this week's call— why won't you entertain this
> > > discussion?
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > I think it is on the Agenda that Matthias has sent out.  
> >  
> > > It's a reasonable request, isn't it? For the record,
> > > these are not a rhetorical questions— I would appreciate a thoughtful
> > > and comprehensive answer— this hard working group deserves as much.
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > I hear you but would like you to be more specific in your request.  
> >  
> >  
> > --Rigo