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: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:24:44 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D811FAE2.6CE30%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>


On 08/11/2018, 17:04, "singer@apple.com on behalf of 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 didnıt have a call this week (mea culpa)Š
>
>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
>donıt 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%2FP
>rocess-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

Even if the number of changes is small, it's better to publish smaller
incremental improvements than "save up" for something more significant,
which might be harder for folk to process.

>
>
>2) Pull Request: Sets the size of the AB to 9­11
>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 ³at
>least 9 and no more than 11², and defines how the elections and so on run
>to manage that. While weıre in this area, itıs convenient to land this at
>the same time.
>
>Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 224?

0 I'm not sure I understand the issues enough to comment on this.

>
>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
>Recommendations² 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?

+1, either (by preference) as currently proposed or in the alternative
form Ralph suggested of removing the note altogether.

>
>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 wouldnıt normally be allowed to enter CR with
>known flaws), as thatıs an improvement.
>
>Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 215?

+1 to the clarification that updating a CR to improve it should be
possible even if further improvements might still be possible.

Nigel

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



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 16:25:08 UTC

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