W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Requesting - again - immediate clarification of Section 7.1

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 05:27:51 -0400
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9a6f63de-afad-a118-7437-5d5889324c2f@w3.org>

On 4/28/2017 2:03 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Le 28/04/2017 à 01:24, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :
>> Hi Daniel,
>> Thanks for your comments. As preparation and review of new charters fits
>> into the Strategy function, I'm responsible for that part of the
>> process. Since October 2016, when I took on that role, I believe we have
>> improved the process and its transparency to members, and I'm sure
>> there's still more work to do.
> Wendy,
> Sorry but I am requesting for a clarification of the Process and if the
> Strategy function is responsible for the realization of that part of the
> Process, you can't be both judge and jury. You're not "responsible for
> that part of the Process" but only for its implementation in daily W3C
> activities. This is a Process issue, to be discussed by the AB and the
> Process TF. I note I'm only a member of the latter, not the former; I'm
> then here only the submitter of the issue. I asked for one clarification
> and suggested some changes that seem to me to mitigate the issue.
>> Since our goal in preparing charters is to find conesnsus around what
>> new work should be started, I encourage discussion, ideally before the
>> charter is formally presented to the Advisory Committee, but not
>> stopping then. If we can find ways of resolving objections without
>> instigating new objections, I don't see why we wouldn't start looking
>> for that route to consensus as soon as we became aware of an objection.
> I never said you shouldn't. I said I strongly disagree with the
> submission, during the course of the Review period, of new versions
> of the documents being reviewed to the ACs. Preparing such documents
> is fine by me *if and only if* the last paragraph of section 7.1.2 that
> seems to me to say the discussions happen AFTER the end of the Review
> period is clarified that way by the AB.
>> I'll look forward to engaging with your concerns in more detail once I'm
>> back from the AC meeting and can discuss with the Strategy team.
> I don't think this is an issue raised against the Strategy team, sorry.
> This is a Process issue for the AB. Reminder:
> 1. I am opposed to any change to review/vote conditions during the
>     review/vote itself, including through public changes to the documents
>     being reviewed, according to section 7.1.1.
> 2. I am asking for AB's stand on section 7.1.2

The AB stands behind Section 7.1.2 and all sections of the process document.

I believe that Wendy was saying that when she gets back to the office 
she will look at the issue you have raised - whether in implementation 
there have been any problems with the process.

> </Daniel>
Received on Friday, 28 April 2017 09:28:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:43 UTC