Review of the New version, PLEASE READ (this may take some study before the next call)

Many thanks to Chaals for all the integration; I am now working through helping us verify where we stand. Despite my attempt to get to nearly-ready text in the issues/PRs, there were still lots of little things for his eagle eyes to catch, which I appreciate.

I looked at the Process2018Candidate list (with #5 restored to that list; did that label get removed from any other issue)? 

Please read carefully before the next call as we need to have a draft for informal presentation to the AC Real Soon Now. 

==== Done, please verify that you’re OK ====

#5 improved errata management
  — I think PLH’s PR was merged as-is
#13 What is a "Memorandum of Understanding”?
  — I think CG text was merged; in addition, it was clarified that the Director’s signature would follow the outcome of any request for appeal and possible subsequent appeal
#26 Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document
  — Wendy’s PR was merged
#30 Add reference to Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CEPC) in the Process Document
  — now says "Participants in W3C activity must abide by the terms and spirit of the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [PUB38]”
    (should it say “any” W3C activity?)
#36 Do we need a superseded status for older specs?
  — I think Leonie’s agreed text integrated, with matching odd edits in other places
#57 Definition of obsolete
  — merged into #36 above and addressed
#60 Clarify the voting process
  — done, line dropped as recommended, but we have ongoing discussion (by Mike, notably). 
#62 can the AB/TAG chair ask for a special election in *advance* of a known upcoming vacancy?
  — done
    "• The group Chair may request an exceptional election, and the election may begin, as soon as a current member gives notice of a resignation, including a resignation effective as of a given date in the future."

=== Done with modifications, please check carefully ====

#23 Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause?
  — the list of reasons an AB/TAG seat is vacant are there. But this request:
     Add in 3.1 before 3.1.1:

The Director may remove for cause a participant in any group (including the AB and TAG), where cause includes violating conditions of this process, the membership agreement, or applicable laws.

    became

Participants in W3C activity must abide by the terms and spirit of the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [PUB38] and the participation requirements described insection 6 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33].

The Director may suspend or remove a participant from any W3C Group (including the AB and TAG) or activity for failure to meet these requirements.


    which to my eye doesn’t explicitly say that the Director can dismiss for cause, and doesn’t explicitly say that the process, membership agreement, or legal violations are included.

#48 The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes
  — I have prepared a PR for the text agreed to date; this should be integrated, see PR #77. I had to tidy the language a little.

   in the issue:

An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the Team. The request should say "I appeal this Director's Decision". Within one week the Team must announce the appeal process to the Advisory Committee and provide a mechanism for Advisory Committee representatives to respond with a statement of positive support for this appeal. The archive of these statements must be Member-visible. If, within one week of the Team's announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request, the Team must organize an appeal vote asking the Advisory Committee "Do you approve of the Director's Decision?" - together with links to the decision and the appeal. The ballot allows for three possible responses: "Approve, Reject, Abstain" together with Comments.

If a majority of those voting Approve or Reject vote "Reject", the decision is overturned. In that case, there are the following possible next steps:

 • The proposal is rejected (i.e. the director thinks it's hopeless)
 • The proposal is returned for additional work, after which a new Call for Review is issued. (i.e. the director thinks consensus on different terms is possible)

what I put in the PR (identify the decision, remove colloquial language, disambiguate, make the re-consider ending completely generic as to the type of decision)

An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the Team. The request should say "I appeal this Director's Decision" and identify the decision. Within one week the Team must announce the appeal process to the Advisory Committee and provide a mechanism for Advisory Committee representatives to respond with a statement of positive support for this appeal. The archive of these statements must be Member-visible. If, within one week of the Team's announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request, the Team must organize an appeal vote asking the Advisory Committee "Do you approve of the Director's Decision?" together with links to the Director's decision and the appeal support. The ballot allows for three possible responses: "Approve, Reject, Abstain", together with Comments.

If a majority of those voting Approve or Reject vote "Reject", the decision is overturned. In that case, there are the following possible next steps:

 • The proposal is rejected.
 • The proposal is returned for additional work, after which the applicable decision process is re-initiated.

#52 Proposed changes to TAG makeup
  — Roughly, though different in a lot of details.

  Requested and agreed by the TAG:

The TAG consists of the following participants:
• The Director himself, an ex-officio member of the TAG; the permission to delegate in clause 2.2 does not apply to this position, but it may be filled by an Acting Director;
• Tim Berners-Lee, a life member of the TAG;
• Three TAG participants appointed by the Director. Appointees are not required to be on the W3C Team or from member companies, but may be W3C Fellows or Individual Experts;
• Six TAG participants elected by the W3C Advisory Committee following the AB/TAG nomination and election process.
The Chair is appointed by the Team, and is required to be from one of the above groups. The TAG also has a Team Contact, as required by <<5.1>>, who is not a formal member of the TAG.

With the exception of the Director and Tim Berners-Lee, the terms of all TAG participants are for two years. Terms are staggered so that each year, three elected terms, and either one or two appointed terms expire. If an individual is appointed or elected to fill an incomplete term, that individual's term ends at the normal expiration date of that term. Regular TAG terms begin on 1 February and end on 31 January.
The Director should announce appointments no later than the start of the term of the seat they are filling, and may announce appointments after the election.

    Implemented:

The TAG consists of:

 • Tim Berners-Lee, who is a life member;
 • The Director, sitting ex officio;
 • Three participants appointed by the Director;
 • Six participants elected by the Advisory Committee following the AB/TAG nomination and election process.
The Team appoints the Chair of the TAG, who must be one of the participants. The team also appoints a Staff Contact for the TAG, as described in Section 5.1.

The terms of elected and Director-appointed TAG participants are for two years. Terms are staggered so that each year three elected terms, and either one or two appointed terms expire. If an individual is appointed or elected to fill an incomplete term, that individual's term ends at the normal expiration date of that term. Regular TAG terms begin on 1 February and end on 31 January.

The Director may announce the appointed participants after the results for the Advisory Committee election of participants have been announced.

    we also gained this general statement:

Participation in the TAG or AB other than as Chair or Staff Contact is in a personal capacity, and a participant's seat must not be delegated to any other person.

=== expected to land by the next process call ===

#33 Re-craft and re-insert the 60-day delay between charter review and Call for Participation
  — ongoing resolution with the editor is active and is converging (I think)


==== candidates but we don’t have agreement on the fix ====

#24 Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter
  — I responded to Chaals points with a proposal in the issue
#34 Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year
#63 Updates to sections 5.2.2 and 2.1.3.1
  — we were not happy on the last call, but Coralie maintains her desire to see the change. we must settle this on the next call


==== marked editorial for the editor to fix as he saw fit ====

#8 Requirements for republishing a CR with non-substantive changes
  — now says that you need to get Director’s approval for all changes to CR, and Substantive changes can require a new exclusion opportunity
#29 Editorial changes often called "minor changes”
  — but the editor disputes that it’s editorial
#44 Consistency issue: is it 28 days or four weeks?
  — done, I think there are no occurrences of “4 weeks” or “four weeks”
#55 Duplicate sentences in Chapter 6
  — done, I think
#56 ToC/document mismatches
  — done/in-process

=== Diff check ===

Finally, a diff from the active Process 2017 <https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2FProcess-20170301%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F>. You’ll see the editor diligently catching changes needed elsewhere in the document, needed for consistency with these changes. I didn’t see anything else, but we should all check. Overall, did Chaals’ miss any ‘consequential edits’?

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 16:34 , Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I pushed a September 6 version of the editor's draft to the github repo so it is now at https://w3c.github.io/w3process/
> 
> The significant changes are listed in the document, and github tracks all changes minor or major.
> 
> There is still an outstanding question about resolving Issue [33] - in particular whether it applies to all charters or just ones that take on new work, and whether the way I incorporated the changes agreed is an accurate reflection of them.
> 
> Issue [29] is still open, but I do not think it is necessary to fix for the reasons outlined in the issue itself.
> 
> I expect to prepare an explanation of the long AC Review starting at CR, along with perhaps a branch showing what would change if we reverted that from Process 2014, for the AC meeting.
> 
> [29] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/33
> [33] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/33
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> -- 
> Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile
> find more at http://yandex.com
> 

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com

Received on Thursday, 7 September 2017 22:49:41 UTC