Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

I would just like to chime in here to say that I support 100% Daniel's
objections to how this was handled and his request that it be fixed
in the Process asap. There is no reason for substantive changes to a
charter, in an organization that is about an open, transparent standards
process, to be handled via back-door channels, finalized without any
discussion with or attempt to get the consensus agreement all of the
primary stakeholders (in this case, all members of the WG affected).

As for what constitutes a substantive change in a charter, this is very
simple: just as for technical documents, it is anything that might
substantively affects implementation--in this case, of the charter.
And the amendment in question  amendment certainly does. The fact that a
normative statement is optional (MAY) no less affects conformance of an
implementation than one that is required (MUST): it affects conformance
of previously non-conformant implementations.

Also, fwiw, I am also opposed to the change that was made. I have no
objection to using the WICG infrastructure for incubation if there are
reasons to do so and the participants agree, but in that case the work
should be considered joint work between the CSSWG and the WICG, not
something that starts in the WICG and ends in the CSSWG. Otherwise we
end up with specs thrown over the wall along with a notice that they're
done and about to ship, with wider review and consensus by the CSSWG
community substituted by narrow review in the WICG. And yes, this has
become a point of contention in the CSSWG since the rechartering;
Daniel's objection is not an academic exercise.


Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 08:32:52 UTC