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: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:14:49 -0500
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <85c9bf48-7f11-3fe4-e278-199fd2402121@w3.org>

On 12/22/2016 3:31 AM, fantasai wrote:
> 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.

I just want to make sure that I understand the use case.  Are you saying 
that without the MAY statement (that work may be incubated in WICG), 
that it would have been prohibited for CSS to pick up anything that was 
incubated in WICG?

> 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.

I don't think it is academic at all.  As I mentioned elsewhere in the 
thread, I would be quite interested if there is a consensus of the CSSWG 
that the reference to WICG be dropped from the Charter.

> ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 13:14:53 UTC

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