Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

On 12/19/2016 9:36 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 19/12/2016 14:24, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>
>> We did not expect any dangers.
> First, thanks for that long message. Finally...
> About the dangers, wow, just wow.
>
>> I'm not aware of any.  But I wasn't the person that was personally involved in these discussions.
> Excerpt from Lisbon minutes:
>
>    "we would have a hard time to follow this group if it doesn't change."
>
>>>    Who exactly approved the
>>> Charter in the name of the Director?
>> W3M.
> Well, from a Process point of view, Section 7 mentions "_the_ Director's
> delegate" and 2.2 mentions "generally to other _individuals_ in the
> Team" so I don't think W3M as a whole is a valid delegate, but I
> understand you won't reply with more precision anyway.

I'm happy to clarify, but there is no more precision.

When a new Charter needs to be approved it comes to W3M.  W3M decides by 
consensus either: (1) approved, (2) not approved, or (3) we think this 
one needs the Director's personal decision.

>
>>> 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.
> Thanks, appreciated, but I was not asking Jeff here, I was asking, as a
> Member, the CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium. So I have no idea what
> purpose serves your sentence immediately above.

In other words, it is a response to you as a Member; not you speaking 
for CSS or all ACs.

>
>> 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.
> Who said a Charter change is asked for? Not me, never. And nobody else,
> AFAIK. On another hand, I said - and some others said it too - other
> Members were, like me, shocked by how this happened.
>
> Who said "authority"? I asked "in the name" so they could get that
> information too and make their own mind, not to represent their opinion,
> of course.
>
> I am going to stop here this thread that goes into circles until I post
> my process change proposals. My summary is simple: despite current AC
> input, despite heated discussions in the WG, W3M does not understand
> why it should have discussed that major change with the WG and have ACs
> vote on it, why the whole rationale you just sent had to be given to
> ACs (in compliance with 7.1.2 item 2), why consensus rules should have
> been respected, and more. Speaking of authority, I think the authority
> W3C gave itself to implement that change under 7.1.2 item 2 is not in
> the spirit of the Process (even if it is in its current words) and was
> clearly falling under 7.1.3 item 3 because too subtantive as a change.
> I think W3M allows itself far too much latitude wrt the Process.
> My conclusion is that managerial changes should be considered.
>
> </Daniel>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 19 December 2016 14:52:53 UTC