Re: w3process-ACTION-36: Propose new text describing the team that mentions the director, fellows, the ceo, the team, and the fact that responsibilities they have under the process may be delegated

23.10.2014, 15:32, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>:
> On 10/23/2014 3:29 AM, David Singer wrote:
>> šOn Oct 22, 2014, at 18:05 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>> š2. In today's discussion about the reference to Hosts, Steve said we
>>>>> šmight not need it here because it is "somewhere". šExcept that I think
>>>>> šthat somewhere is actually here! šI think there is a consensus that it
>>>>> šshould be somewhere.
>>>> šI don't believe there is a consensus. You were in favour of mentioning them (I don't really understand why) and I am not (since they play no role in the Process itself, and were *only* mentioned in this section).
>>> šI agree there is no consensus between you and I on this point.
>> šwell, do you agree that if they play a role in the process, they should be mentioned, and if not, not?

Jeff, do you agree to this proposition?

>> šIf so, we just need to establish the role they play in the process, if any
>
> I described my rationale on last Tuesday's call.
>
> Basically, since this is the "W3C Process Document", I feel it is
> sensible to define somewhere in the process document who W3C is. šIt
> does not need to be in this section, but it should be somewhere.

The document describes the process that is followed by the community which is "W3C", and the roles and reciprocal obligations of Team, Members, and Group Participants, to produce the Working Groups and specifications that are "W3C". 

The current Processvdoes not include participants in Community or Business Groups, but that's a different issue. 

The membership agreements and hosting agreements are separate from the Process, since they are administrative details at a completely different level. And as shown by the fact that membership categories and prices change entirely independently of the Process, it seems to make sense that we maintain the separation.

> So the Host's role in the process is at the "meta" level, they comprise
> the definition of what the phrase W3C means.

I believe they provide part of one possible explanation. But the fact that they were and are not mentioned elsewhere in the document suggests that we don't need to describe them in relation to the Process.

> Without a definition of
> the Hosts there is no anchoring for the entire document.

I disagree. It is important to know who the Team is, since they have explicit roles in the document. 

I believe that we can be reasonably clear about who the Team is without reference to the hosts. I doubt many people know, or care, what the hosts' role is and I don't see any evidence that such knowledge makes a difference to their ability to understand how W3C works in practice.

Compared to leaving Community Groups and Business Groups out of the Process, whether the hosts are mentioned seems trivial. Doing so therefore seems to me part of the unnecessary verbiage that makes people reluctant to read the document closely, giving rise to many legends about what people *believe* is in the Process that isn't actually there.

cheers

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

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 14:00:20 UTC