W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > April 2015

Re: [webappsec] pre-Agenda: Conf Call work mode

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:49:10 -1000
Message-ID: <CAFewVt4o_0mfm6WWftz2NCqs17EOUWAMrD_-2NiFjcDkA1AZfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it has proven valuable to socialize discussion of tricky issues and
> establishing consensus verbally has allowed us to move quickly through
> things that would block for a long time on the mailing list.  I also like
> the social accountability it provides for work items, etc.

As an outside participant, I think your conference call has a negative
effect on social accountability. Multiple times in the past the output
of the conference call has been "we've decided X" and it isn't clear
at all who *actively* participated in arriving at that decision (vs.
just remaining silent during a call for objections, or not attending,
for example) or what reasoning was used to reach the decision.

Conversely, when consensus is achieved on the public mailing list or
the issue tracker, it is clear who actively participated and what the
arguments were.

> 1) Editors would select a teleconference date at which they'd commit to
> discussion of their spec.  This should be no less than every 3 months, in
> keeping with a goal of producing a heartbeat draft.
>
> 2) Editors would be responsible (with assistance from the chairs as desired)
> for batching up and keeping track of issues on the list and tracker which do
> not reach a natural consensus.
>
> 3) Prior to the call, Editors would be responsible to work with the chairs
> to produce an agenda of outstanding issues.  The agenda would contain some
> background information.
>
> 4) Teleconference participants can use plan this to "do their homework" on
> the outstanding issues for a single spec, and with some introduction on the
> call from the Editor(s), and so participate more meaningfully.  Participants
> that are only interested in a single spec can plan in advance to attend the
> relevant calls even if they do not want to participate on a regular basis.

1-4 can and should happen even for the public mailing list
discussions. IMO, the main improvement needed is a more detailed and
accurate schedule for the working group's work in general, and
establishing target dates for resolving specific issues.

> 5) The goal of each call should be to resolve enough issues for the
> Editor(s) to be able to produce a heartbeat draft or advance the document
> status in the following week.

IMO, Issues should be resolved on the public mailing list, and not in
the call. If an issue is stuck, then it makes sense to discuss it in a
teleconference to find a way to unstick it, but the rationale and
accountability for any actual decision should be clear on the public
mailing list.

Cheers.
Brian
Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 20:49:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:11 UTC