RE: Proc Doc: time to Slash and Burn, Divide and Conquer, or what?

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:46 AM
To: Stephen Zilles
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proc Doc: time to Slash and Burn, Divide and Conquer, or what?

On 6/4/13 7:38 AM, ext Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> Charles and Art have said,
>
> >
>
> > Whose consensus?
>
> >
>
> > I think the answer here is "The members" - i.e. the Advisory Committee.
>
> >
>
> >> * 7. Tech Reports process.
>
> Re "consensus by whom?" - if the TR process is going to change, there
>
> should be some type of CfC/RfC of the Draft that is open to the Public
>
> (which includes Members). Similar to a LCWD review for a spec.
>
> I would note that this is the process which has been followed for all 
> versions of the W3C Process. I has been presented to the AC for 
> comment and then given a formal AC Review. What is new, is conducting 
> the discussion in which changes are prepared in public. The minutes of 
> all the recent discussions have long been Member visible and are 
> summarized in the regular AB Summaries, but that has not been public 
> (in part because the AB discusses topics that might not be ready for 
> public presentation). The W3C Process is not, however, such a topic.
>

So you agree that all W3C _process_ related discussions should be moved from Member-confidential list(s) and meetings and conducted solely in Public list(s) and meetings?

-AB

No, I only said that the mailing list discussion of the Process should be on a public list. The openness of AB meetings (in which there may be discussion, among other things, on the W3C Process) is a separate topic which has previously been resolved.  To be consistent with an open and public discussion of the W3C Process, it would seem to be useful to extract and publish that portion of the AB Minutes and Summary that apply to the W3C Process on the public list. That, however, requires a commitment of time which needs to be discussed before being agreed.

Steve Z

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 12:16:22 UTC