- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 11:24:52 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 01/05/15 11:05, David Singer wrote:
> 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.
There was unanimity minus one in a 30+ attendance. I call that a pretty
massive consensus.
We tried negotiation and there were a few "uncomfortable" results:
- 99% of the WG was unhappy, many called the blocker raised, I quote,
ridiculous, end of quote
- the proposed editor was humiliated and frustrated, despite of
totally undisputable merits both on technical and editorial sides
shown during many years and in multiple specs
- Process was not followed
- W3M needed to step in and was unhappy
- it took almost eight months to solve the issue
In short, that was a mess.
If chairs have to negociate a prerogative explicitely given by the
Process, I suggest two options: the Process has to be changed,
or the Process is explicitely not mandatory but negotiable guidelines.
If you want invited experts' and editors' appointment to require
consensus, that should be in the Process. It isn't, and I don't think
it should be, precisely because of the blocker we had in the CSS WG.
This is not preemptive action, but the result of a real situation.
We should have used our chairs' prerogative that day, whatever the
feelings or subsequent actions of the individual who blocked us.
If an individual blocks the Process and if, as it happened, he/she
continues blocking it after Chairs' and W3M' intervention, there should
be a clear warning that a limit was reached and the individual will
put himself/herself outside of W3C if he/she continues. We have rules
for that in the Process.
Don't misunderstand me, this is not dictatorial at all; this is the
minimum minimorum for mutual respect and efficient work in a WG: the
Process must be respected by all.
</Daniel>
Received on Friday, 1 May 2015 09:25:17 UTC