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: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:52:49 -0500
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9b8231d3-e81a-963b-4d3c-75ad5c7a03f4@w3.org>


On 2018-11-15 01:54 PM, David Singer wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 15, 2018, at 9:41 , Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Since we are now past the deadline of 9am PST 2018-11-15, and the last
>> email from Ralph shows lack of consensus, shall we extend the CFC,
>> perhaps to Monday?
> 
> I believe that Ralph is content with the suggested re-writes and has withdrawn his blocking of consensus.

I confirm that this is accurate.

-Ralph

> I don’t think the re-phrase affects anyone who previously gave consensus (and we have explicit confirmation from Nigel and the AB).
> 
>>
>> Also I saw in GitHub that Ralph's comments are being addressed, and
>> thus we should extend the CFC to make sure anyone not monitoring
>> GitHub but may have already reviewed the process doc has a chance to
>> review those diffs.
> 
> We’re going now to AC informal review for a few weeks, and in order to hit a formal vote in time, I think we need to do that. Issues can still be raised (I hope minor) in informal review.
> 
> Good enough?
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tantek
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:04 PM Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-11-08 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?
>>>
>>> +1, with the editorial changes in #227 and #228 [1,2]
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/227
>>> [2] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/228
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> -1 due to some overconstraining language.
>>>
>>> I offered two alternatives in #214 [3,4]
>>>
>>> [3] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/214#issuecomment-438710375
>>> [4] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/214#issuecomment-438842137
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> -1 as I don't support 214 as-is (and if an approach such as [4] were
>>> adopted would handle 215 similarly).
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Singer
>>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2018 20:52:52 UTC

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