W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2014

Re: What is Process Good For?

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:34:58 -0500
Message-ID: <54917872.2000702@intertwingly.net>
To: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <michael.champion@microsoft.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 12/17/2014 06:58 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>
>> But I agree that the model of appealing to the Director is not
>> working and needs to be avoided in the new model (and eventually
>> scrapped from W3C).
>
> If you have a consensus model, you need a reasonable chain of appeal
> to engender trust.

I question the premise.

> Noting that in any open group, you can look for allies to show that
> "most people support my opinion" - and that not very representative
> groups divorces the discussion from reality - the WHATWG appeal chain
> is
>
> participant -> editor.
>
> The W3C model, which has
>
> participant -> editor -> chair -> "director" (which in practice is
> often a compound chain something like "team contact -> domain lead ->
> director" - that could profitably be clarified).
>
> and provides for successively stricter requirements of documentation
> and so on as you move along the chain is in this sense far better,
> IMHO.
>
> To put things in kindergarten terms, the WHATWG model degenerates
> into "yes - no" without much clarity on how to resolve it. The W3C
> model has "I'll tell my mum / the teacher / …" with the sense that if
> you do, you're going to lose something for frivolous complaints. But
> while a lot of decisions are trivial, we generally prefer to have a
> grown-up supervise the sandpit so actual bullying can be acted upon
> by someone sensible.
>
> Which is to say that I am not sure we should do away with the model
> of escalation, but we should look carefully at how it works and make
> sure it does what we expect.

These are not the only two models.

I'll refrain from repeating my description of an alternate model that 
has worth better than both of the above two models.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 12:35:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:25 UTC