Re: Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force

Hi Art,

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:07:43 +0200, Arthur Barstow <>

> On 10/9/13 5:18 PM, ext Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> In addition, the task force meets on Mondays, at 8am Pacific/11am  
>> Boston/5pm Paris/7pm Moscow time in a 1-hour teleconference hosted by  
>> W3C's US-based bridge. Members of this this group are invited to  
>> participate. If you wish to join the telephone conference please let me  
>> know in advance (on the list or in private mail), so I can try to  
>> ensure sufficient lines are available.
> Please make sure the agenda is posted to this list at least 24 hours  
> before the call starts.

I've cc'ed Steve Zilles, who is chairing the AB Task Force and is a member
of this group. I agree, it would be very helpful.

>> Future meetings will use the #w3process irc channel  
>> <irc://>, allowing you to follow the meeting  
>> without dialling in. This channel will *not* be logged in public, but  
>> the minutes will be made public after a 24-hour period of review by the  
>> AB.
> Please:
>     s/review by the AB/review by the AB plus those that attended the  
> meeting/.

Yes, I hope that will be how it is done in practice.

>> Please note that, in accordance with the charter of this group and with  
>> the W3C Process itself, the AB (not the community group) is responsible  
>> for making decisions on what the AB will present to the AC as proposed  
>> changes.
> Does this CG even have a charter?

It has a stated goal, and a chair. In Community Group land, that's all
that is required for a charter. (It's like the WHAT-WG).

(If you'd like to propose a formal charter I don't know of any reason you
shouldn't, or couldn't).

> If so, please cite/reference where the members of this CG agreed to
> relinquish all `decision making` to the AB.

We didn't. We never had the ability to make the AB's decisions. That was
acknowledged in the creation of the CG. I was merely acknowledging that
fact again. And as Chris noted, we have not handed decision-making for  
this group to the AB - although I have been opening and closing issues  
based on AB discussion as it seems relevant.

Note that there is a wiki page which tracks which of this group's issues  
the AB is (not) interested in. The primary purpose of that is to ensure  
that if we disagree, we can maintain our own issues as we see fit.

What we have achieved is that the AB agreed to work in public, using the
forum of this group. I believe you have been agitating for that for some
time. And they have what I hope will be a workable idea of how to put it
into practice now.

This has taken more time than I hoped, to the point where the AB might
have more or less finished its discussion before we managed it. On the
other hand:

1. We have established a precedent for the AB. I expect to re-use that
precedent, so I think it was worth the effort.

2. Nothing has prevented this group raising and discussing issues since it
was formed, and nothing prevents that now. I expect the AB will actively
engage here with any further comments or issues raised.

I believe that we on the AB have not been very efficient in getting to
this point. But we do want to make this work more public. As you may
understand, a group that has worked with a high degree of confidentiality
for many years doesn't always find it straightforward to understand the
mechanics of how to become public overnight.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Friday, 11 October 2013 02:54:08 UTC