W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:39:10 -0500
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <eedbacb2-4f67-bcce-3db5-7d1629b6a29c@w3.org>

On 12/17/2016 2:03 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 2016, at 04:41, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>> I assume (until we cut over to GitHub) you should raise an Issue.
>>>> Done; issue 176.
>>> thx
>>>>> 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.
>>> I am not sure how best to handle this, but it worries me.
>> 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 don't think it is reasonable. It might work out OK often enough, but submitting something for a vote, getting various people to review it and approve what they read, THEN changing the document without consulting or informing the people who have already voted is inherently problematic, and W3M is not in a good position to judge what matters to whom without actually asking. Editorial changes (typos, markup, formatting, etc) are different, but any change that affects the meaning of the charter cannot reliably be evaluated as consensual by W3M. Consensus is observed, not decreed.
> At the very least, all ACs, and especially those who have already voted, should be notified of any change, and the review period should be extended to allow for a new review.
> However I think we should actually send the document back for discussion and rework, with the issue identified, and possibly (but not necessarily) a suggestion on how to address it. If it is minor, it should be quick. If the group fails to resolve on anything, then it will be time for W3M to try and broker a deal, or weigh one way or another to resolve the dispute, but give us a chance first.

I think it is fine to submit this proposal to Process 2018 and if that 
is the consensus of the Membership we should respect that.  In my 
experience this may often not be the best solution, but that is just one 
person's experience.  Also, in the particular case of CSS, it is rather 
not obvious to me that this would have resulted in something better than 
we have (see also below).

> For example, continuing on the example of the addition of incubation in the WICG to the CSSWG charter, this could have given an opportunity to people who are pushing for incubation outside the CSSWG to tell the rest of the CSSWG what they think makes the CSSWG inappropriate for in-house incubation, which is what it had been doing so far. Maybe we would have been able to agree on some changes that would have made the CSSWG an acceptable venue for incubation for all. Maybe not.

AFAICT, CSS has not lost the opportunity to have that debate.

I believe that the sentence in the charter that you are referring to is: 
"The CSS WG may incubate speculative new work in the WICG, and may adopt 
promising CSS work developed in WICG, provided that RF patent 
commitments are in place for such work."

Having the statement in the Charter does not prevent CSSWG people to 
inform each other and debate about different choices for incubation.  Go 
ahead and do so!  By making this statement a "may", as a practical 
matter CSS can do whatever they want on this point. Which is probably 
the reason that the Team naively did not expect that this would have 
changed the review for you and Daniel (who actually has said that he 
personally has no problem with the change - only the process by which it 
was made).

>   As it is, we don't know, and those who dislike external incubation get annoyed as those who ask for it every time they do, and those who ask for it get annoyed at those who push back, and we cannot really defer to the charter on this topic because it isn't actually consensual (and uses ambiguous wording to boot).

Correct.  You cannot resolve the issue by defering to the charter. Which 
is exactly why it uses ambiguous wording.  Because you are supposed to 
discuss it with each other in the group.  So holding up the Charter 
would seem to be unnecessary.

> —Florian
Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 02:39:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:42 UTC