W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > February 2015

Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Resolution of Issue-154

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:32:56 -0500
Message-ID: <54D80038.9040309@w3.org>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Hi, folks–

Is there any sympathy for the position that AC Review should at least 
have the option of being public?

There are 2 scenarios in particular that I think would benefit from 
public visibility:

1) AC reviews of WG charters: it would be useful to be able to talk to 
the larger community about how much support there is for a particular 
working group, and which companies are interested in it, so we can build 
community support and awareness for the group's work;

2) Formal Objections during Proposed Recommendation phase: such 
objections at the very least delay publication of Recommendations, and 
it's difficult for chairs and staff contacts to set expectations about 
the current status, next steps, and expected timelines when we can't 
talk publicly about the issues raised; just recently, this happened with 
the Pointer Events specification, and I think the Director would have 
been better informed by the kind of conversation that the community can 
bring to bear on such reviews.

Sometimes there are good reasons for these reviews to be Member-only, 
and even Team-only, and Members should always have those options; but 
sometimes a Member may wish to express their views in public in a formal 
way, and I suggest that at least allowing the public option would serve 
those needs (and the interests of the larger Web community).


On 2/8/15 5:55 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> This is a call for consensus to resolve Issue-154, Should there be a
> default confidentiality level for AC reviews?
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154
> Responses to this call are due by Close of Business on 16 February 2014
> (two weeks). Please send a reply to this message (I agree, I disagree, I
> abstain) to register your opinion. The CG rules do NOT assume that a
> lack of reply is agreement with the proposal. (See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0160.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0163.html )
> If you wish to discuss the proposed change, please create a new thread
> for that discussion (so that “votes” are easily separated from
> “discussion”).
> The current (Process 2014) text for section 8.1.1 is
>         8.1.1Start of a Review Period
> Each Advisory Committee review period begins with a Call for Review from
> the Team to the Advisory Committee. Thereview formdescribes the
> proposal, raises attention to deadlines, estimates when the decision
> will be available, and includes other practical information. Each Member
> organizationMAYsend one review, whichMUSTbe returned by its Advisory
> Committee representative.
> The TeamMUSTprovide two channels for Advisory Committee review comments:
>  1. an archivedTeam-only
>     <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#Team-only>channel; this is
>     the default channel for reviews.
>  2. an archivedMember-only
>     <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#Member-only>channel.
> ReviewersMAYsend information to either or both channels. TheyMAYalso
> share their reviews with other Members on theAdvisory Committee
> discussion list <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#ACCommunication>.
> The proposed Resolution is:
> On list item “1.” above, eliminate, “this is the default channel for
> reviews.”
> Add a paragraph following list item “2.” above, with the sentence, “The
> Call for Review MUST specify which channel is the default for review
> comments on that Call.”
> Rationale: Given there are two possible channels for review comments,  a
> reviewer needs to know where his comments will be going by default.
>   However, it is not necessary to specify this in the Process and it
> suffices that the Call itself identify the default channel.
> Steve Zilles
> Chair, Process Document Task Force
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 00:32:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:26 UTC