Re: Toward process changes that actually move the Web Forward [Was: Re: An update on Suggested response to ...]

On 4/16/2015 7:54 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 4/15/15 12:23 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> We have run out of time in Process2015 (unless we don't want to do a 
>> rev this year).
> If the changes section of Draft PD-2015 [1] is reasonably accurate, it 
> appears PD-2015 as crafted in [1] is just minor Editorial changes such 
> as removing old sub-processes that are no longer used/effective (e.g. 
> Coordination Groups, Good Standing, Activities). I didn't notice any 
> change that addresses issues that are actually blocking WGs and/or the 
> consortium from making forward progress.
> Rather than try to meet some arbitrary publishing deadline constraint 
> created a year or so ago, it seems like it would be useful to leverage 
> the results from similar past failures - to publish on Qn of YYYY just 
> "because we said we would" - and to actually address the `harder` 
> issues people do care about. It seems quite dismissive if not 
> anti-social to effectively tell Daniel "no, you'll have to wait YA 
> year before we properly address TAG voting process" when issues like 
> the composition of the TAG and AB and their related process (like 
> voting) have been well documented for many years.

By snipping my email above you completely took it out of context.

What you chose to not cite from my email is where I said:

"There was plenty of time to try to find a consensus in Process2015; 
many discussions on multiple email lists.  what we came down to - which 
had the greatest consensus for now - is what is in the document."

In other words, what you are requesting has already happened.  We had 
numerous discussions and debates in the last year about reforming the 
TAG voting process.  And we actually came up with a proposal which 
seemed to have the consensus of the participants. When you say that 
PD-2015 only has minor Editorial changes - you miss the fact that the 
very issue you want addressed - TAG elections - has been addressed in 

So my only point was that we should capture the progress we made in 
PD-2015 and go on discussing further proposals for PD-2016.  I don't 
understand what you believe to be anti-social about that.

To be sure, if the AC wants to reject PD-2015 and do nothing until 
PD-2016, the AC has that option.  It could be that in the next year we 
will secure a consensus on your favorite variation of TAG election 
proposals.  Personally, I see no advantage in not capturing the 
consensus we already have - because we will use the PD-2014 voting 
procedures in the meantime.  But that is an option that the AC has.

Or perhaps in PD-2016 the AC will continue to disagree with itself and 
we will continue to have no change.

> So yes, my recommendation is to park this Draft for "a while" and to 
> take on some of the `harder` issues that people have raised (from a 
> quick scan of [2][3], 104, 107, 127, 133, 142, 149, 156, 158, ...).

I agree that we should take on these harder issues.  The only question 
is whether to block where there is agreement until we make progress on 
these issues.

> -Thanks, AB
> [1] <>
> [2] <>
> [3] <>

Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 12:27:59 UTC