09.02.2015, 03:48, "Delfí Ramírez" <delfin@delfiramirez.info>:

On 08/02/2015 23:55, 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.

(I am chair of the CG. According to the rules for CGs, which are not part of the W3C Process, this means that I make the rules in the absence of a charter, which is the prevailing circumstance in this CG. The general working process of this CG assumes that a lack of reply to a call for consensus can legitimately be interpreted "I can live with this". How the AB task force interprets results of questions put to this forum where it has chosen to do its work for now is the business of the AB TF).

(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
8.1.1 Start of a Review Period
Each Advisory Committee review period begins with a Call for Review from the Team to the Advisory Committee. The review form describes the proposal, raises attention to deadlines, estimates when the decision will be available, and includes other practical information. Each Member organization MAY send one review, which MUST be returned by its Advisory Committee representative.
The Team MUST provide two channels for Advisory Committee review comments:
an archived Team-only channel; this is the default channel for reviews.
an archived Member-only channel.
Reviewers MAY send information to either or both channels. They MAY also share their reviews with other Members on the Advisory Committee discussion list.
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.”

I disagree with the proposal, although I could live with it.

I would agree with a proposal which simply removed the phrase "this is the default channel for reviews"

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

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