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

On 2015-06-02 06:01, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Fortunately, this is one of the situations where there can be an AC 
appeal because there is a formal objection.  So, there isn't gridlock.  
5% of the AC disagree with the Director's decision and then there is an 
vote in the AC and the decision can be reversed (as long as there was 
any formal objection - even if that formal objection agreed with or even 
proposed the Director's decision - there can be an appeal).  So, there 
is no gridlock on this particular Review.

If no one formally objected, but people made comments that moved the 
Director to reject that part or to create something altogether different 
as the solution, then we could not appeal.

But, we could also do an AC poll on the 3 options at the same time as 
doing the new AC Review to get the forgotten change in.  (the 3 options 
being no change.  allowing multiple representatives from the same 
company until the next election, or  removing restrictions on multiple 
representatives from the same company.

So, put all 3 wordings in the version that gets voted on with a note 
that they'll be asked to separately Review those 3.

>
>>
>> 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
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>