[DRAFT for comment] email to the AC on issue #6

The process CG is working through filed issues and deciding which ones to spend time on, and if one is a candidate for spending time on, what the next steps are.

One we looked at in the recent call is:

Are the role and structure of the AB adequately defined? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/6>
Converted from <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/142>, in turn bearing the comment "Inherited from the AC tracker”

* * * *

The Process CG discussed today whether we should take this question up, and we felt that we need guidance from the AC. There are two explicit questions here, and a third one implied.

1) Is the structure of the AB adequately defined?  The answer would seem to be yes, in that elections etc. define the composition.
2) Is the role of the AB adequately defined?  One might argue that a clearer definition of role could be achieved, but it’s doubtful that that would improve what the AB actually does, so it’s doubtful the AB itself needs a clearer definition. So, question to the AC: are people outside the AB uncertain of the role of the AB, and would a re-definition help?

Then there is am implied question:
3) Do the role and structure of the AB match what we want and need?

This is clearly a large can of worms and opens the possibility of multiple lengthy responses and replies to responses.  However, despite calls for more active engagement with the AB, more active AB work, and so on, it’s not clear that the AC sees any problems with the defined role and structure.


So, the overall question to the AC: should we take this up, and if so, to improve what, or solve what problem (i.e. to what goal or end would we be working)?


David Singer

Process CG Chair

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 21:08:15 UTC