- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:25:09 -0800
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
> On Feb 8, 2015, at 16:32 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi, folks– > > Is there any sympathy for the position that AC Review should at least have the option of being public? Yes, some. But sometimes the objections to a document are of such a nature that making them public is akin to washing our dirty laundry in public. Sometimes housecleaning is best done quietly. Formal objections are sometimes a reflection of dissatisfaction with the way something was handled. > > 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; I am trying to think of reasons why a statement of intention to join could not be public. After all, a join of the WG would be. Could we make the responses to that question always public, I wonder? > > 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). I have no problem with tri-state * confidential, team-only * member-only * public And as I said in response to another question, we could consider having no default, forcing the AC Rep to choose, and we could also consider putting “(suggested)” after one of these. Finally, the placement of this question on the form (at the top) is odd, to my mind; the other questions about where the response goes (e.g. “also send this as email to…”) are at the bottom… > > Regards– > –Doug > > 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 David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 17:25:58 UTC