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: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:50:01 +0000
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB48843483E3F3ECBECDA3E6C97B50@BLUPR03MB488.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I'm leaning toward "ask the Director" to decide whether the organization is best served by the current rules that many have objected to informally or the compromise that 4 objected to formally.

Without fixing what virtually everyone on the TAG told us is a serious problem with Process 2014, I don't see much value in a Process 2015 that only cleans up obsolete stuff. So either let Tim resolve the objections, or admit defeat and try harder next time.
________________________________
From: Jeff Jaffe<mailto:jeff@w3.org>
Sent: ý6/ý2/ý2015 6:02 AM
To: Wayne Carr<mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>; public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Process CG process question - was RE: Agenda Process Document    Task  Force Tuesday, 2 June 2015



On 6/1/2015 8:34 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:


On 2015-06-01 12:28, Jeff Jaffe 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.

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.

Since the formal objections are all on one change that isn't related to the other changes, removing that change and reverting to the old text would be an option.

Indeed, that was one of the three options that I thought should be proposed to the AB.

The other two options which also have some logic (imho) are:

1. Conclude that there is no groundswell of support to change the process.  This viewpoint assumes that changing the process deserves a higher degree of support from the membership than a mere charter approval.  We had 70 AC reps in a room in Paris and less than one-third took the small number of seconds to express an opinion.

2. Ask the Director for his advice on the formal objection.  The process task force struggled with the TAG/AB vote issue and reached a viewpoint of what would find the greatest consensus.  When a formal objection was expressed in the March review, the task force Chair looked for consensus between the objector and the task force recommendation and was unable to find one.  Given all of that, it is possible that any change in TAG/AB would always have some objections.  Yet, we should not be in the gridlock situation where we would never change the vote procedure just because there are a small number of objections.


The one change that seems most useful, being able to quickly make editorial changes apparently was accidentally left out of what was put to AC Review - but it looks like the change to the definition of editorial changes that was needed to make that other change did make it in.  It would be nice if broken links, typos and errors in examples could be quickly fixed.

One possibility would be to add that change in that was accidentally left out.  remove the change that have the 4 formal objections and quickly do another AC review - not another last call - pointing out what changed.





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.

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<mailto: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<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=08&day=26&year=2014&hour=14&min=00&sec=0&p1=0> (10:00am-11:00am Boston local)
Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200<tel:+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
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 13:50:33 UTC

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