W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2021

Re: Process CG, proposals to address and close

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:37:43 -0700
Cc: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <A628663F-9481-43F5-BD6F-AF4CEAEAF1BF@apple.com>
To: James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com>


> On 24Aug, 2021, at 5:06 , James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Thank you. I look forward to attending tomorrow's meeting.
> 
> I can confirm the formal objection process is now underway. Thank you.

thanks, on the agenda.

> 
> In relation to scope. We can likely agree that a working group with the objective to design a lawn mower specification would not be within the scope of the W3C. Therefore there is a scope boundary. Guidance concerning that boundary is needed. This is not the same thing as complete clarity.


Sure, I think we’re all fine both with the W3C having a definition of its mission and scope (not including lawn-mowers); and we expect member push-back when we stray outside that scope, and member scrutiny when we’re in the grey area. That would come in the form of charters and their approval, I think. The question remains: do we need a change in the Process document?

> 
> Regards,
> 
> James
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
> Sent: 18 August 2021 16:29
> To: James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com>
> Cc: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Process CG, proposals to address and close
> 
> Hi James
> 
> 
>> On 17Aug, 2021, at 3:27 , James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> I request time to explain the issues I raised that are proposed to be closed in your email.
> 
> Surely. That’s why it’s only a proposed disposition, to allow time for discussion.
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> I am told that both of these are in process, and I would hope/expect that you would be aware of that. I am not in either loop so I have no visibility, alas. If you are not aware of action, you might check with the team (but the ombuds process is deliberately rather confidential, of course).
> 
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> The Process governs what steps we take when performing our work. Questions of the scope of the consortium are really matters for the entire membership. The process is designed to allow for high — to some eyes, extreme — levels of engagement. We encourage all members of the consortium to comment on any charter, for example, not just those trying to do the work. We allow for public input on charters, as well, which is rarely done by member consortia.
> 
> What we’d need is a case for a concrete change to the process — what specifically do you want to change in the text of the Process, to change our working methods, with justification, and if it’s a large change, exploration of any negative consequences too. It’s fine to raise general concerns, but unless they cause conversation that results in a proposed change to the text of the process, and then consensus on that, this CG has little it can do. None of us like to spend boundless time on general anxiety; we need to get to specifics eventually.
> 
>> 
>> 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 think the issues need to be looked at through the lens of asking what body is the appropriate one for addressing them. There is an upcoming TPAC where you could, for example, try to get broad community attention in the breakouts, for example. You also have access to the AC mailing lists.
> 
> Overall, I think all standards bodies have a scope that has a penumbra of matters that might be in or out; even those focused on a physical format such as Blu-ray have had discussions of this sort. I think trying to get “clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty” (quoting an author I expect you recognize) could take a long time. The suggestion is that instead, people should challenge charters that propose work that they feel is outside the remit of the consortium; it’s much easier to deal with specific questions than general ones (though, as the EME debate showed, even specific questions can be hard).
> 
> Hope that helps
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple

singer@apple.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2021 17:38:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 24 August 2021 17:38:02 UTC