Requesting - again - immediate clarification of Section 7.1

Dear Tim and w3processs Members,

A while ago, the Charter Review of the CSS WG triggered, after the
Director's decision, huge reactions because a rule-breaking change was
introduced during the course of the Review despite of objections and was
announced only 48 hours before Lisbon's TPAC. And then 48 hours later,
during Lisbon's TPAC, a Member immediately and formally used the new
mechanism introduced by that change. In short, some Members were already
traveling, missed the announcement and could not object or even appeal.
Immediately after, I started a discussion about potential immediate
changes to Section 7.1 but that was deferred to "Process 2018" despite
of my warnings.

Today, the Publishing Working Group's Charter [1] is under AC Review.
Two objections [2] were filed, including mine. W3C Team started
discussing the details of the objections with the submitters. That
discussion was held in the Publishing mailing-lists and public-new- A new document based on the originally proposed Charter and
including changes representing a compromise was produced by W3C Team.
W3C Team then proposed to submit that document to the ACs [3]
immediately. I disagree 100% with that idea [4] and, to be honest, I
don't even understand how this can be proposed.

- one Member review already references the discussions that took place
  while these discussions are not linked from the WBS form nor from the
  results page.

- sending an revamped Charter, even informatively, creates
  confusion. The sort of confusion that led to the CSS WG Charter issue
  detailed above. Which document is the Review about? What does it
  mean to existing reviews if ACs who already voted do not or cannot
  notice the new document?

- Section 7.1.2 [5] details four outcomes of an AC Review and four
  outcomes only: approval modulo minor changes; approval modulo
  substantive changes and Director's rationale; returned for more work;
  rejected. The submission of a revamped proposal during the Review
  itself is not an option.

- only ACs subscribed to the Publishing mailing-lists followed the

This is the n-th time documents under Review at W3C are changed during
the Review period itself, in an attempt to sort objections out as fast
as possible and allow a positive outcome for the documents under Review.
I disagree with that habit that focuses on speed to the detriment of
Process and quality of the votes, and am therefore asking for a
immediate stricter interpretation of Section 7.1:

1. general discussions can of course take place during the Review in the
   mailing-lists meant for that. But please see item 5 below.

2. mailing-lists for discussions MUST be linked from the WBS page (this
   is NOT the case for the Publishing WG Charter's wbs) so all ACs
   can find and read the discussions.

3. the document(s) under Review MUST NOT be modified in any way during
   the Review period.

4. a revamped version of the document(s) under Review in answer to
   already posted reviews and/or subsequent discussions MUST NOT be sent
   to ACs nor made public during the Review period.

5. it remains possible for the Team to prepare such new document(s)
   based on discussions in item 1 and have it (them) ready for
   submission to ACs at the end of the review BUT it must be noted that
   Section 7.1.2 of the Process seems to say the discussions on the
   review comments happen after the end of the review period. It's not
   the case at all today. I am then formally asking the AB to clarify
   the following: is it even allowed, per Process and according to
   Section 7.1.2, to discuss the Review comments during the Review

6. I am also asking for a 7-days moratorium on Director's decisions
   following a Review before all AC meetings and TPAC.

As a result, I am then totally opposed to that submission of a revamped
Publishing WG Charter during the course of the Review.

I understand it will delay Reviews having formal objections but sorry,
I cannot care: rule #1 of democracy and even consensus is that
nobody ever changes the condition of a poll or the candidates during the
poll itself. This is exactly what I am asking for above. That happened
far too many times at W3C, and I hate that impression we conform to the
Process only when it helps, and not when it's more a burden.

The only way to avoid formal objections and negative outcomes on Reviews
is the submission of better documents, not behind-the-curtains work
around the Process.




Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 08:11:18 UTC