- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 04:12:37 -0400
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
On 4/30/2015 3:13 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote: > I see at least one area where Chairs should lead more strongly, and > that's related to an issue we recently got in the CSS WG: the W3C > Process gives a few, rare, direct prerogatives to Chairs. They appoint > Invited Experts, name editors, a few things like that. For the first > time in CSS WG's history, an individual the vast majority of members > wanted to see co-edit a document was blocked by a Member, despite of > a clear consensus. Because of the local culture that required a WG > unanimity to appoint an editor, we chairs made a mistake: we started > a negociatiation instead of relying on the Process that says it's one > of our prerogatives and it was extremely long and painful. This is not > going to happen again, Peter and I have decided this becomes our sole > decision again, granted by the Process. I strongly agree that we have inadequately mapped out the role of the Chair. We have some in the Guide book [1], but that listing is too administrative for my taste. I'm not sure if updating this in the new crowd-sourced Guide is adequate, or if we need more in the process document. [1] http://www.w3.org/Guide/chair-roles.html
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 08:12:41 UTC