Re: w3process-ISSUE-154 (AC review default confidenitality): SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews? [Process Document]

OK I understand now and agree it's simplest to remove the default.

On Feb 3, 2015, at 5:14 AM, "chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>" <chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>> wrote:



02.02.2015, 21:42, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>>:

On Jan 31, 2015, at 18:24 , chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

30.01.2015, 22:45, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>>:
 Does there need to be a default channel?

What problem does the default channel cause that would be worth even a tiny amount of effort to fix?

Someone might ask why there is a default channel that isn't respected in practice. Or why W3C doesn't follow it's own process - and someone might waste time trying to justify what happens.

The tiny amount of effort required is in fact smaller than explaining it, so we have now expanded the necessary work.

I'm lost.  When I do a review, there is an option at the top, which seems to have a different default than the one you say, but maybe that's a bug:

<Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 10.39.37 .png>

I agree that we should normally conduct our business member-visible, so I think the form is right in this default.  Is that the question, that we should align the process and practice?

My suggestion is that we just remove the requirement for a default.

The alternative would be to make member-visible default.

I believe the change in practice came about based on an AC meeting, possibly one of those at Lyon, so insisting that W3C follow the process we have now seems like a dumb idea.

cheers







cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:23 AM
To: public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: w3process-ISSUE-154 (AC review default confidenitality): SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews? [Process Document]

w3process-ISSUE-154 (AC review default confidenitality): SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews? [Process Document]

http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154

Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile
On product: Process Document

This should be a tiny issue, so I hope we can resolve it in passing.

In section 8.1.1 on AC reviews it says [1] [[[The Team must provide two channels for Advisory Committee review comments:

  +  an archived Team-only channel; this is the default channel for reviews.
 ]]]

Does there need to be a default channel?

I would suggest not, others have suggested it is helpful - and others have suggested it is helpful if it is to publish it to the world.

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


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.


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