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: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:50:11 -0500
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <f1ca5fb8-4172-1fce-f3be-d612e94d46b8@w3.org>

On 12/18/2016 4:20 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 18/12/2016 03:39, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> it is certainly worthwhile to take this up in Process 2018
>> [....]
>> I think it is fine to submit this proposal to Process 2018 and if that
> 2018, wow. It's december 2016. Are you serious, Jeff?

Please also see Chaals' measured comments.  My comments below.

>   This precisely
> fuels my other current request in the AC Forum for faster process
> changes.

I am absolutely serious.  Revising the process has taken an average of 
15 months.

> We are discussing a Process hole that authorized W3M to make a
> unconsensual and potentially harmful decision for one of its most
> successful Working Groups (precisely for the 20th birthday of CSS,
> nice) and you're suggesting to have it resolved in 1.5 years from now
> on average?

If the Process CG, AC, and AB agree that there is a serious problem that 
needs to be solved sooner, it is absolutely possible to do so.

Since your use case involved the CSS group, my recommendation would be 
to first get a consensus of the CSS group that they feel that the final 
CSS Charter has caused harm.  A resolution of that force from such an 
important group would propel us into rapid action.  As Chaals pointed 
out, that action could even pre-date an update to the Charter.

>> 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!
> I don't think you understand.

I understand that is your personal viewpoint.  None of that prevents the 
CSS group from having the discussion now, nonetheless.

>   We wanted to discuss the opportunity
> BEFORE introducing that possibility in the Charter. We feel W3M imposed
> us a new working and organization scheme without a single second of
> discussion about it. We feel W3M went beyond its powers doing so.
> We feel that Section 7.1.2 item 2 is now *untenable* given how W3M used
> and abused it, given how are held discussions with micro-groups of
> influence during votes on Charters leading to very substantive changes
> to Charters decided by W3M w/o AC vote. This is far too opaque, and that
> opacity should go away immediately because it went beyond acceptable
> limits. W3M's fault, not ours.
>> 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.
> Excerpts from Process Section 3.3:
>    The Director, CEO, and COO have the role of assessing consensus
>    within the Advisory Committee.
>    ...
>    Consensus: A substantial number of individuals in the set support the
>    decision and nobody in the set registers a Formal Objection.
> The "decision" was not part of the vote. 3 positive opinions: not a
> substantial number. I objected. The final compromise was never
> discussed in the open and it was decided by W3M alone.
> It's then not a consensus. First conclusion: W3M violated the Process.

W3M made a judgment that permitting groups to incubate in WICG would not 
change reviews.  Evidently we were wrong in your case. (Personally, I 
don't believe that W3M can prevent someone who wants to incubate a CSS 
idea in WICG - no matter what it says in the Charter - but that is a 
side matter.)  In any case, I don't think that making a wrong judgment 
call violates the Process (apparently neither do you - because that is 
why you want to change the process), but I understand that others may 

> Second conclusion: the current CSS WG Charter is void.

While I disagree with the conclusion, I also point out that we 
occasionally change Charters in the middle.  I think that if the CSSWG 
came to W3M requesting a revised Charter that removed permission to 
incubate in WICG (which as I said above would be pretty strange imho), I 
am sure that W3M would take that quite seriously.

> I am ready to object to all Charters sent for review and vote until
> a decision to fix 7.1.2 with either a constraint or a removal of item 2
> is planified for the next 6 months, not 2018. I am not trusting W3M any
> more to do the right thing based on 7.1.2 item 2.

This is certainly within your privilege as a Member.

> On a more personal note, I find it devastating and heartbreaking since
> I've always stated "I trust W3M to do the right thing" in the past.
> Similarly, I don't think I ever heard W3M say "we screwed, sorry; let's
> fix this mess together right now" and that too becomes untenable.

I'm not sure what sort of confessional you are looking for.  In the past 
several years there have been several times in which there were formal 
objections to a Charter; we looked at it; we worked with Members; and 
came back with a better Charter.  Examples of that include 
accessibility, payments, and we are currently working WoT. Imho, those 
examples might fulfill "we screwed, sorry; let's fix this mess together 
right now".

> </Daniel>
Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 14:50:20 UTC

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