Re: Call for Consensus (in email) on closing out process 2019, ONE WEEK POLL closing NOV 15th

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:05 AM David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> 1) The existing document at GitHub <https://w3c.github.io/w3process/>
> represents changes that we had consensus to incorporate. However, we have
> not established consensus that the resulting document should be sent
> ahead.  A diff with the current process (including, at the end, a summary
> of changes) can be seen by using the W3C Diff Service <
> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2FProcess-20180201%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F
> >
>
> Do we have consensus to send at least the current draft <
> https://w3c.github.io/w3process/> on to the AB, W3M, and then AC for
> approval?
>

Aside from a request to merge the PR I just filed to fix a typo, I approve
of this action.


> 2) Pull Request: Sets the size of the AB to 9–11
> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/224
>
> The current process enlarges the AB from 9 to 11, a size that might be
> difficult to fill all the time. This softens that change, saying “at least
> 9 and no more than 11”, and defines how the elections and so on run to
> manage that. While we’re in this area, it’s convenient to land this at the
> same time.
>
> Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 224?
>

This seems unnecessarily complex to me (having a "minimum" and "maximum").
I would have simply said if nominations aren't made, seats aren't filled,
and will be up for election at the next scheduled election.  (Or, perhaps
better, current nominees fill seats, and additional nominations are taken
for a subsequent special election.)

I wouldn't formally object, but I think this is the wrong way to solve the
problem.  The likelihood you can get five but not six nominees seems off
base with current experience.


> 3) Pull Request: Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR
> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/214
>
> The phrase "Candidate Recommendations are expected to be acceptable as
> Recommendations” in the existing process has been found in practice to be
> confusing and even ambiguous. This pull request tries to clarify that.
>
> Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 214?
>

I'm okay with this.


> 4) Pull Request: Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the same
> maturity https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/215
>
> This is based on, and depends on, 214, which is expected to be merged
> first.
>
> This clarifies that if you update a document already in, say, CR, then the
> update should meet the CR entry criteria; EXCEPT in the case where you find
> multiple flaws in a CR, you can update to fix only some of them (even
> though normally you wouldn’t normally be allowed to enter CR with known
> flaws), as that’s an improvement.
>
> Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 215?
>

I'm okay with this.