- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:03:26 -0500
- To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <54D9128E.4080006@w3.org>
On 2/8/2015 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? > Since this effects AC reps directly, I think it would be prudent to inform ac-forum about this poll so we can get input from AC reps sooner rather than later. Few AC reps pay attention to the CG, so we should get a sense of their input earlier than when we send them a revised process. > http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154 > <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). > Eight days appears to be a very short 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 20:03:35 UTC