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

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:15:48 +0500, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>  
wrote:

>
>
> -----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 said,

>> > Whose consensus?
>> > I think the answer here is "The members" - i.e. the Advisory  
>> Committee.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> * 7. Tech Reports process.

> And Art opined:

>> 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 think that's a rational thing to do. I note that the Membership would  
have to agree. And in this case, unlike other reviews, it is the AC and  
Team who collectively decide on the results of the review.

Steve:
>> 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.

Art:
>
> 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?

Steve replied:
> 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.

And I have a slightly different opinion...

In general it makes sense to discuss the process in public. That's why  
this CG exists, and I presume it is one reason why people such as Steve  
(AB chair), Jeff Jaffe (W3C CEO) and myself are in this group.

Steve is right that the AB has a possibility to discuss things "in  
camera", which I believe is valuable, for certain things. I doubt that  
this applies very often to the process, if at all. But it is the role of  
the AC to decide that this should be changed (and the AB to accept the new  
conditions).

The CG provides a transparent forum for discussion, where people who may  
not be in the AC or AB can provide clear explanations that convince the  
people concerned that a change should be made.

My conclusion is that I think that at least most discussions should be  
held primarily in the CG, and people should be strongly encouraged (e.g.  
by being polite and welcoming and friendly) to participate in public  
discussions.

Because of the patent policy applicable to CGs there are important  
stakeholders whose lawyers make it difficult to join a CG (so long as  
business methods are patentable, I guess there is a theoretical risk that  
we have a patent issue), and there are people who are frankly  
uncomfortable discussing when their comments become fair game for  
publication - history shows that they will be taken out of context, even  
if all care is taken by the people speaking. If we don't enable a forum  
where they are comfortable, such as the member-only list, a certain amount  
of valuable comment will be lost, from the relative openness of  
member-only archived mail to the black hole of untraceable private  
discussions.

Over time I hope that diminishes. My experience (repeating what former W3C  
chairman Jean-François said a decade ago) is that you don't make it so by  
wishing it so - it takes hard work, and it takes time.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 23:58:59 UTC