Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

On 18/12/2016 11:01, wrote:

> Which we can make if you can get consensus on a proposal, as noted.


> I think this overstates the case. As you suggest below, a bad judgement call on consensus is effectively a violation of the Process already. So improving the procedures used, not the rules that govern them, might well be the right solution.

Not sure. A current hiatus occured precisely because the Process keeps
the rules vague and relies on extra procedures and trust. That did not
work well enough.

> That doesn't follow, because the Process describes AC appeal as the error-correction mechanism.

Sorry, I disagree. There can be an appeal when the vote is conformant to
the Process. I don't think it was the case and I don't think the
Process kept applying beyond that point.

That said, I am not ready to call for the CSS WG Charter to be
rescinded and submitted to vote again. But there is still a mess to
clean, and no it's not entirely in CSS WG's hands.

  - no formalized relationship between WICG and CSS WG
  - no known constraints on incubation exit criteria from WICG
  - "good enough" effect
  - etc.

> That seems drastic, and probably counter-productive. Although you're free to do it of course.

We have a major issue arising from a big mistake and the suggestion is
to solve the issue in 2018 and let the CSS WG deal 'a posteriori' with
a decision never discussed. You said "counter-productive"?

> I generally trust that people in W3C - all across the ecosystem - try to do the right thing. And that from time to time they'll get it wrong. Indeed, that's what I do. Having people keep watch for, and try to correct problems is important. Personally, I also prefer to look for a simple solution. Part of that has resulted in me working on the Process for a few years, trying to simplify and modernise it - and alongside that, trying to promote better practice. My long experience has been that the Process was often updated attempting to "quickly" resolve something perceived as a problem, and that it often turned out we should have been looking at our practices instead, because we made the Process over-complicated, too fragile, and didn't solve the underlying problem well.

Let's summarize:

- 7.1.2 is tailored for technical documents, not Charters.
- 7.1.2 is tailored for technical documents, not Process.
- 7.1.2 item 2 gives too much latitude to W3M for very substantive
- 7.1.2 item 2 was abused.
- Side discussions during Votes are unacceptable.

I am going to propose a revamp of this section in the coming days,
modulo Christmas disruptions of course.


Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 11:56:18 UTC