Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

On 12/17/2016 3:43 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 16.12.2016, 20:42, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>:
>> On 12/16/2016 1:54 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>>   On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:42 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   On 16/12/2016 18:24, David Singer wrote:
> ...
>>>>>   do you have a pointer? it’s nice to have a “test case” or example
>>>>   Last CSS WG charter. Optional incubation was added based only on 3+1
>>>>   votes to the Charter w/o discussion in the WG itself. Hardly a
>>>>   consensus, and hardly AC agreement. I don't disagree with the outcome
>>>>   but the way it happened is absolutely not normal, nor in the spirit
>>>>   of our Process.
>>>   Yes, I get it. After Charter review, there is typically a discussion with those objecting (formally or not), and then the result is sometimes approved without being exposed again to either the WG or AC.
> ...
>> W3M's guideline is to send it back to the AC when changes are made that
>> are substantive (which we interpret traditionally to mean that we
>> believe that they would effect a reviewer's review). This is a judgment
>> call.
>>
>> I'm interested in whether people think that this is a reasonable guideline.
>>
>> Assuming it is a reasonable guideline, then there is the reality that it
>> is possible to make an incorrect judgment in some case.
> I think the principle you use is OK - if anything rather too strict, since an agreed substantive change that clearly has consensus does not need another review.

I have no problem with defining a crisp process for Charter reviews.  I 
suspect it will be challenging to cover every nuance and every case - 
achieving both consensus and agility without an impressively lawyered 
document - but it is certainly worthwhile to take this up in Process 2018.

>
> But as I have said before, I think the application is systematically wrong.
>
> Where an agreement has been made for a change, but with only a small subset of the reviewers, that has repeatedly led to other reviewers not being aware that the charter would be changed until it is presented as a fait accompli. In the worst cases, this has led to a second round of review receiving more objections than the first.
>
> The member-charters-review email list was created during one set of contentious charter reviews as a mechanism to ensure that any AC rep could be kept informed of proposals to change something in response to reviews. Sadly, W3C staff seem very reluctant to stop talking to small groups, and instead use it. The latest example I can think of is the HTML Media Extensions charter, where a subset of people were lined up and offered the chance to "recant" on their objections, but as far as I know there has been no effort to hold a discussion that is open to the AC at large.

This must have been a meeting that noone from the staff attended since 
there was no meeting that we called with such an objective.

The Director did have a meeting in which he invited those who raised 
objections to the HTML Media Extensions charter.  Seeing that a majority 
of reviewers supported the extension, but a substantial minority 
objected - he had as an objective to understand the objections better 
and to explore whether there is room for consensus.  In that particular 
call there was no obvious path to consensus, but the team is still 
exploring whether one can be found.

>
> cheers
>
>
> -- 
> Charles McCathie Nevile - standards - Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 02:15:30 UTC