Re: Thoughts on culture -esp. chairs and versions Re: " W3C Culture" CG? RE: Problems I'd like to see addressed in Process 2016

> On Apr 30, 2015, at 9:13 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> 
> I see at least one area where Chairs should lead more strongly, and
> that's related to an issue we recently got in the CSS WG: the W3C
> Process gives a few, rare, direct prerogatives to Chairs. They appoint
> Invited Experts, name editors, a few things like that. For the first
> time in CSS WG's history, an individual the vast majority of members
> wanted to see co-edit a document was blocked by a Member, despite of
> a clear consensus. Because of the local culture that required a WG
> unanimity to appoint an editor, we chairs made a mistake: we started
> a negociatiation instead of relying on the Process that says it's one
> of our prerogatives and it was extremely long and painful. This is not
> going to happen again, Peter and I have decided this becomes our sole
> decision again, granted by the Process.

This is kinda like the Queen’s sole prerogative to sign legislation into law — or to refuse to.

Yes, she has the power, but if she has to exercise it, she’s lost.

I strongly suggest that chairs operating without the consensus of the WG are likely to find life uncomfortable, and that negotiating is, in fact, the right thing to do.


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.