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

RE: Process CG process question - was RE: Agenda Process Document Task Force Tuesday, 2 June 2015

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:01:39 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
CC: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB488A56F68F1B4C48BF6B00297B60@BLUPR03MB488.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> I am surprised that a change that got 4 FOs did not get a reasonable number of other votes.

Did you mean "comments" rather than "votes"?  The preponderance of opinion inside my organization is that the proposed TAG change is a good one, but I didn't see the need to call that out in a comment. If that were a separate ballot question I would have voted for the TAG change.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 1:50 PM
> To: Jeff Jaffe
> Cc: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); Stephen Zilles; public-
> w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Process CG process question - was RE: Agenda Process
> Document Task Force Tuesday, 2 June 2015
> 
> 
> > On Jun 1, 2015, at 12:28 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think we have a larger issue than just the scheduling of the meetings.  We
> have not gotten engagement that all of the changes we are proposing are
> worth doing.
> 
> Also, we schedule to allow Asian reps to attend, but do we get many?
> Though I suppose changing it so that they are *less* likely to attend is also
> sub-optimal.
> 
> > We just completed a ballot for Process2015.  19 AC Members favored the
> changes and there were 4 Formal Objections.  Well over 300 AC Members
> chose not to vote.  There is an AB call in two weeks, and the AB will need to
> decide how to proceed.  Given the tiny participation and the quantity of
> objections it is not obvious that there is sufficient consensus to move
> forward.
> >
> > To those of us who are active in this activity, we need to work hard to make
> sure that we are making changes that are valued by the constituency.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> But I can't tell whether it's "don't care either way" or "seems competently
> handled, ignore it" or "this is minor staff, who cares?". I think this year's
> cleanup was mostly in the last of these, apart from the one change that got 4
> FOs.  Though I am surprised that a change that got 4 FOs did not get a
> reasonable number of other votes.
> 
> I fear we may need to ask the AC...
> 
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/1/2015 3:22 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> >> There has been pretty limited participation on this call for the last few
> months, which is at 7am Pacific and late evening in East Asia.  Is it time to
> consider a more "asynchronous decision making" mode for this CG?
> >>
> >> From: Stephen Zilles [mailto:szilles@adobe.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 11:55 AM
> >> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> >> Subject: Agenda Process Document Task Force Tuesday, 2 June 2015
> >>
> >> The call is on Tuesday, 2 June, 2015 at  14:00-15:00 UTC
> >> (10:00am-11:00am Boston local) Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200,
> >> conference code 7762 ("PROC") IRC Channel: #w3process
> >>
> >> For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times were:
> >> Pacific:  7:00
> >> Eastern US: 10:00
> >> Central Europe: 15:00
> >> Japan: 23:00
> >>
> >> The purpose of these meetings has been to agree on the resolution of
> open issues, close them where possible or assign actions to move toward
> closure.
> >>
> >> Agenda:
> >> 1.       Review Open Action Items
> >> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open
> >> 2.       Review results of AC Review on Proposed Process 2015
> >> 3.       Review Open and Raised Issues relevant to Process 2016
> >> List of such to be sent in separate message
> >> 4.       Review other Open and Raised Issues
> >> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/
> >> 5.       Any Other Business
> >>
> >> Steve Zilles
> >> Chair, Process Document Task Force
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 1 June 2015 21:02:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:29 UTC