W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2018

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

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:30:40 -0500
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
Cc: w3mreq <w3mreq@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Message-ID: <98eb03fd-315f-532e-1d23-eaaf048e860e@w3.org>
David,

Here is W3M's review of your four questions.

1. W3M supports the spirit of the document but cannot support the 
document in its current form because of one issue that W3M believes is 
fixable.

The current fix to issue #208 in Section 2.5.1 makes it sound like the 
"individual" seats held by AB members are actually seats "held by 
organizations".  As noted by Ralph in github, that is not acceptable.  
Ralph has proposed a fix in github which an editor (Florian) appears to 
agree with in the sense that it is a better way of addressing issue #208.

So -1 to the document in the current form; +1 to the document if Ralph's 
fix is applied.

2. +1 to PR 224.

3 and 4.  W3M could not reach a consensus on PR 214 and PR 215. Ralph 
has indicated in a GH comment on issue #172 that "the molehill has 
grown".  In other words, it could be that these changes are overreaching 
a bit, compared to simpler solutions. While I advocated for these PR's, 
due to Ralph's concerns W3M could not reach consensus.  I suppose that 
Ralph might write individually to express his concerns more completely.

Jeff

On 11/8/2018 12:04 PM, David Singer 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?
>
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 14:30:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:49 UTC