Fwd: Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

Resending due to typo...

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:  Re: Requested addition to section 7.1
Date:  Mon, 19 Dec 2016 08:24:41 -0500
From:  Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
To:  Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, 

On 12/19/2016 3:03 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 18/12/2016 03:39, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> 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).
> The CSS WG does not have "different choices for incubation" because the
> very initial choice of incubation OR NOT was IMPOSED TO THE
> GROUP BY W3M without a second of discussion. The rationale behind was
> not explained, detailed, or even given to us. The name of the people the
> discussion was held with was not disclosed. Seen from the Group, W3M
> obeyed to some browser vendors, a hyper-limited number of Members,
> without consensus.
> Given your reaction, given how "voluntary" this change is quoted, I am
> requesting officially, as a Member, immediate disclosure of the full
> and detailed rationale why it was urgently needed to so drastically
> modify the Process of "one of the most successful WG of the W3C"
> without the Membership in the loop and without respecting entirely
> the Process, in conformance with Process Section 7.1.2 item 2.


W3C long ago created Community Groups to support incubation.  There is
tremendous flexibility in what individuals bring to Community Groups.
In general, CGs are set up in a way that support permissionless
innovation.  If some individuals want to set up a CG, it does not
require permission of the Director, W3M, the AC, or any particular WG.
That has been the case for some time.

It follows from that, that if an individual chooses to incubate a CSS
related idea in a CG, there is actually nothing that the Director or the
CSS WG can do to stop them.  That is not news.  That is the way that
things have worked for years.

A CG that set itself up several years ago is the WICG.  In their Charter
[1] they include in their scope that any proposal for a web platform
feature included in browsers could be discussed.  They explicitly
identified a liaison with CSS.  It could be an unwanted liaison (from
the pov of CSS), but it clearly signaled their interest in working with
CSS.  This Charter - like any CG Charter - did not go through Director
and AC review and approval.

With that background, it has been the case for some time that people may
incubate speculative new work in the WICG for CSS.  There is actually
nothing in our process which would prevent that.

It is also generally the case that Charters do not restrict Working
Groups where they find innovation.  We expect most of the work of WGs to
happen within the WG.  If there is work coming from outside the WG, we
can use it, as long as we have access to the Intellectual Property
within W3C (i.e. we have copyrights to utilize the text and there are
patent commitments).  For work emanating from CGs, working groups in
general can utilize the work, as long as we have the RF patent commitments.

Accordingly, W3M's view - even prior to writing it into the CSS Charter
- was that it was already the case that: "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."

At the review of the previously proposed CSS Charter, some reviewers
requested that WICG be noted as a group that should be coordinated
with.  W3M did not view it as controversial to list such a coordination,
or to describe a relationship that was already possible and was
(apparently) desired by at least some participants.

[1] http://wicg.github.io/admin/charter.html

> W3M had a plan and we know nothing about that plan. What's its extent?

W3M has no plan other than to note that CSS and WICG may work together
as some Members want.

> What's the expectation?

None, in particular.

>   Who did you discuss it with?

You'd need to ask PLH.

>   How did you
> evaluate the dangers (because there are important dangers) and who did
> that evaluation?

We did not expect any dangers.

>   Was the AB in the loop?


>   Who exactly approved the
> Charter in the name of the Director?


>   Did you receive threats to leave
> the CSS WG from a vendor?

I'm not aware of any.  But I wasn't the person that was personally
involved in these discussions.

>   And so on.
> I understand if the answers are posted to a Member-only forum but this
> is an official request and, for once, I dare asking in the name of all
> members of the CSS WG and, beyond, all ACs.

I want to make clear that I am providing this response as a personal
response to you.

I don't recognize that you have any authority to ask in the name of the
CSS WG or all ACs.  As I said elsewhere in this thread, it would be
significant input to me if the CSSWG wanted a Charter change. That
should come as an appropriate consensus of the CSSWG, not from a single
individual asking in the name of all members of the CSS WG.

> </Daniel>

Received on Monday, 19 December 2016 13:31:40 UTC