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

On November 8, 2018 12:04:21 PM EST, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>Folks
>
>Jeff has gently reminded me that I should have held the process call by
>now, in order to get Process 2019 to vote by the AC (and review by the
>AB and team). So, since we didn’t have a call this week (mea culpa)…
>
>This is a formal Call for Consensus on 4 questions below. Please
>respond within 7 days, i.e. by 9am Pacific  on the 15th November. 
>These need to be binary yes/no or approve/reject responses, please. 
>
>Earlier responses are gratefully received.  Specific concerns, even
>editorial ones, should be noted in GitHub. (But if you respond to any
>of these with No, I expect to find somewhere the substantiation of that
>no, probably as a comment on the Pull Request or filing of a New
>Issue).
>
>There are four roughly independent questions. We have a current draft,
>and, I believe that there are 3 Pull Requests that are uncontroversial,
>and good to incorporate this year. For all of them, if there is any
>significant objection, I think they can be safely deferred. The other
>Pull Requests seem to need more work.
>
>Looking at the remaining Issues, I believe that there are no issues
>that don’t have Pull Requests that are mature enough and urgent enough
>to address.
>
>The four questions:
>
>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?

+1

>
>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?

0 (no opinion)

>
>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?

No, as detailed in the issue.

>
>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?
>

No, because of objections to 214, I haven't re-reviewed.

Thanks,
--Wendy

--
>
>
>David Singer
>Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

-- 
Wendy Seltzer wseltzer@w3.org mobile +1.617.863.0613