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

01.05.2015, 11:25, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>:
> On 01/05/15 11:05, David Singer wrote:
>> šI 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.

Yes, that is true. But it appears to be irrelevant to the circumstances described, and frankly I don't see much value to be gained by digging deeper at this point.

> There was unanimity minus one in a 30+ attendance. I call that a pretty
> massive consensus.

Yes, it seems that for an administrative decision you already had sufficient agreement, and negotiation was the wrong path.
[...]
> šš- W3M needed to step in and was unhappy
> šš- it took almost eight months to solve the issue
>
> In short, that was a mess.

Yes. But we as chairs live and learn.

> 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.

I'd resist pretty strongly the suggestion that what the Process says is mandatory (which in fact is precious little already) isn't actually mandatory. The process is one of the very few things that actually represents a "formal" agreement between participants in W3C.

> 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.

Yes. In other words, I think the process has it right there, and you should (as you say) have been faster to fall back on it.

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Friday, 1 May 2015 10:52:54 UTC