Re: Possible item for discussion for 2016 -- Charter adjustments

14.05.2015, 01:32, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>:
> On 2015-05-13 12:00, David Singer wrote:
>>>  On May 13, 2015, at 11:53 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 5/13/2015 12:54 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>>>  On May 13, 2015, at 9:50 , Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  On 05/13/2015 12:48 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>>>>  At the moment, if one objects to a charter, the team works with you and others who objected, to adjust the charter to resolve your objection, which is great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  But then the charter is simply adopted.  Those who voted for the charter as it was, who might have liked it before it was adjusted and maybe
>>>>>>  don’t like it now, are not consulted.  This could easily be a problem.

And has been in the last few years, but I think it is a question of practice and suspect we're closing in on reasonable practice.

>>>  Certainly a candidate topic.  Generally, I'd like to clean up potential problems, but seeing how difficult it is to get a new Process approved I'd rather focus on real problems.  Do we have examples where this has been a real problem?
>>  There was one a year or two ago where we were surprised and considered raising it, but in the interests of peace and harmony we let it go.

I don't know what the Process change that would make people think more carefully might look like. I do know what the practice recommendation is, having made it repeatedly.

Which is why I don't see this as a priority issue for the Process.

> Rather than increase the time needed for Charter approval in order to
> allow for possible changes, I think a better approach is to broaden what
> is appealable.  Than if someone thinks a modification has gone too far,
> they could appeal and if the needed 5% of the AC agree with the appeal,
> it goes to a vote that could override the Director's decision.  That
> makes it so there is extra time needed only when things go wrong.

There is an open issue on making appeals believable - given the requirement to get an historically high number of signatures in a ridiculously short time, I am unsurprised there hasn't ever been an actual appeal. My own perspective is that it feels like it would almost certainly be a waste of time trying to launch an appeal if I merely thought the decision being appealed was terrible and unsupported by any consensus of the members…

I would like to deal with that issue, although hopefully we never need to use the resulting work.

cheers

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

Received on Thursday, 14 May 2015 16:05:16 UTC