- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 11:25:58 -0700
- To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- CC: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 2015-05-14 09:04, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: > > 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… An AC rep has 3 weeks to appeal and an additional week to get 20 AC reps agreeing to have a vote. (A recent AC review had 5% of the AC submit reviews in the first 4 days of the review). If there was something wrong or controversial, I don't think it would be hard to get 5% in a week -- after possibly 3 weeks of debate about it. The appeal is a safety valve for when the AC thinks the wrong decision was made. I'm more interested in having that safety valve not be so restricted about where it applies. > > 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 18:26:28 UTC