Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

> Let's call a cat a cat, please and let's keep Tim outside of this story. 
Well, I wrote “Director” in quotes, I didn’t mention Tim personally.  As I understand it, Tim delegates most of the functions that the Process Document, Patent Policy, and Member Agreement assign to the Director, to the CEO and W3C staff.  They make sure to discuss the particularly hard or controversial questions with him personally.  So “Director” is a shorthand way of saying “W3C management acting in the name of the Director, possibly but not necessarily with Tim’s actual input.” 

> About 2, yes, this is clearly my proposal. That group is the AB. And 
> you recall correctly, I have always said the AB needs to become the 
>  Supreme Court of W3C's Process. 

Thanks for clarifying.  It will be interesting to see how other members feel about the question.  But there’s a lot of details in the process document that would need to be changed to implement the “AB as Supreme Court of the Process” even assuming it gets broad support of the membership. It will be good to get the document in GitHub so we can have a more efficient discussion of change proposals!


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 2:29 PM
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Requested addition to section 7.1
Resent-From: <public-w3process@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 2:30 PM

    On 18/12/2016 21:25, Michael Champion wrote:
    
    > Daniel, I can understand why you think the “Director’s” changes to the final CSS charter
    
    Hi Mike.
    
    Mike, I know perfectly who introduced that change, how and when. And
    it's not the Director. Announcements are sent in the name of the
    Director but the last time he chaired a Spec confcall was long ago and
    he sent exactly 5 messages to the AC Forum in 6 years. In 7.5 years of
    CSS WG co-chairmanship, only Ralph and PLH have chaired a confcall with
    us. Let's call a cat a cat, please and let's keep Tim outside of this
    story. Thanks.
    
    > it does have a rationale for the change
    
    Sorry, I don't see a rationale for the change. I see a count of the pro
    and con opinions leading to a "THEN we made a change". This is not a
    rationale, but only a report. And I am also saying 3+1 is very hardly
    enough as a representative basis for such an important decision.
    
    > And as Jeff has noted, the change is completely voluntary.
    
    Yes, I know it is. And that change is clearly a problem since my
    objection was never discussed with me and the outcome was never
    discussed with the objecter.
    
    > 1. Some individual, usually the founder, has final authority over all activities and delegates it as he/she sees fit (the current model)
    > 2.  Some group selected based on “merit” hold authority to decide issues that cannot be resolved by consensus (IETF and Apache come to mind)
    > 3. The wider membership selects a Board of Directors that have authority to hire/fire staff and determine how technical decisions are made (most SDO’s operate this way, I believe)
    > 
    > Is it even plausible that we could find a Director with the credibility to make decisions stick AND who has the time to devote to W3C day to day operations so that decisions such as this would not be delegated to W3M? If not, are options 2 or 3 (or others) worth considering? 
    
    See my first paragraph above about 1.
    
    About 2, yes, this is clearly my proposal. That group is the AB. And if
    you recall correctly, I have always said the AB needs to become the
    Supreme Court of W3C's Process.
    
    I don't like item 3. But I think there is room and opportunity to add
    Votes of Confidence to the Process.
    
    About your last sentence: you mean a Director who would work fulltime
    at W3C? Yes, certainly.
    
    </Daniel>

Received on Monday, 19 December 2016 06:29:46 UTC