W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2016

RE: Agenda: Process Document TF Telcon on Monday, 13 June, 2016

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:51:43 +0000
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB111413FF81325B94E4401F48AE500@BY1PR02MB1114.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:32 PM
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>; public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: Agenda: Process Document TF Telcon on Monday, 13 June, 2016

On 6/9/2016 12:05 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:

The call is on Monday, 13 June, 2016 at 15:00-16:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+Process+Document+Task+Force+Meeting&iso=20160411T08&p1=224&ah=1>


Webex Information is on our Mail Archives internal-w3process@w3.org<mailto:internal-w3process@w3.org> (see separate e-mail to this list)
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2016Jun/0000.html  (member only accessible)

For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times were:
Pacific:  8:00
Eastern US: 11:00
Central Europe: 17:00
Japan: 24:00

The purpose of these meetings has been to agree on the resolution of open issues, close them where possible or assign actions to move toward closure.


1.      A new method to vote for AB and TAG Members

2.      A consideration of whether to include a notion of an Obsolete spec (not to be confused with a rescinded spec)


3.      Cleaning up the handling of the Appeals Process in the existing Process Document


Note that item 11 in this message should also be labelled with Issue 167 and that these changes address some of the issues that were raised in the e-mail discussion of item 2 above.

Since I cannot attend Monday, I will repeat what I have said in the past.

I appreciate the intellectual thought that is driving use cases that leads to these proposals.

However, many of these use cases have never happened in practice.  And adding process text for cases that never happen is an anti-pattern for our goal of streamlining the process.

SZ: to the best of my knowledge no Appeal has ever happened, but that is not a reason to not have clear instructions on what can be appealed and how. Most of the changes in the "Clean-up" are related to issues that were raised in comments during the Review of Process 2015. At that time we agreed to do a Clean-up of the text to make the identification of what is appealable and how to do it more clear. The items that are labeled with Issue-164 or Issue-165 are of that category. Only Issue-167 introduces a new Appeal. The other items are "simplifying the process by making it more clear" and are not adding to the size (in any significant way. In fact, some of the changes shrink the document. Therefore, I believe your comment on it being an "anti-pattern" to be substantially incorrect and not in agreement with commitments made in getting Process2015 approved without resolving all the comments given at that time.

4.      The existing CG discussion about Member organizations.


5.      Supergroups

6.      Any other topics

Steve Zilles

Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force
Received on Friday, 10 June 2016 05:52:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 June 2016 05:52:16 UTC