RE: Process CG, proposals to address and close

Hi David,

I request time to explain the issues I raised that are proposed to be closed in your email.

As two examples of where the Process does not work in practice.

1. I have raised a formal objection to a Working Group as suggested in this comment. (https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/477). However there has been no follow up or contact to discuss resolution to date.

2. I have followed the Ombuds process, which also appears to not work in practice. It is a mechanism of the W3C establishment to explain the history of the W3C and offer advice to deal with the establishment rather than mediating resolution.

Is it really so controversial to define the scope of the W3C clearly enough to enable work under the W3C brand to be identified as in scope and quickly rule work that is not as out of scope? Do we really think that the W3C Process should not include wider stakeholder representation to ensure we reflect the needs of all participants of the web and not just those with the time and/or money to engage proactively?

If the Process does not work in practice then it does not work, no matter how well drafted the words are.

Last year I was advised by you and others to bring issues to the Process CG. I did that and have been widely criticised privately and publicly for doing so. The Process CG now are intent on closing those issues based on a review with a very narrow and long-time W3C participants. If these issues are not for the Process CG, then where? And will that other group then pass them back to the Process CG? Will these real concerns end up being caught in an endless cycle of bureaucracy?

I have the next meeting as 7am PST 25th August. Correct?

Regards,

James

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Sent: 16 August 2021 21:11
To: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Process CG, proposals to address and close

Hi

The editors and I went through the entire repository, to clean up issues. Some were closed as addressed, and a few were transferred to the AB as being out of our scope.

Of the remainder,

1. we picked a few that we feel should be addressed in the next revision, in ADDITION to Director-free:

<https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2022%20Proposed%20to%20address>

(#518 was already accepted to address)

2. we picked a lot that we believe should be closed no action (or no further action):

<https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2022%20Proposed%20to%20close>

The remaining stay open as needing addressing some time, of course. The editors hope to address the editorials:

<https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Type%3A%20Editorial%20improvements>

At the next meeting, I intend to get agreement on the set we *want* to address in P2022, and label as P2022, and in the absence of objection, to close those labeled as proposed to close.

So, you might like to scan the issues under these labels and check to see if you would take any out; and (more work) the rest of the repo to see if you would like to propose adding any in.

Please don’t *remove* these labels from any issue; comment on them if you disagree with the label.

If you want to add proposed to address/close to any issue, please (a) add the label AND (b) send email to the group saying that you did it, with issue numbers and/or URLs, so we can all consider whether we agree.

Thanks


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple

singer@apple.com





This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, use, store or copy the information contained herein. This is an email from 51Degrees.mobi Limited, 9 Greyfriars Road, Reading. RG1 1NU. T: +44 118 328 7152; E: info@51degrees.com; 51Degrees.mobi Limited t/as 51Degrees.

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2021 10:28:08 UTC