W3C Web Crypto WG - no conf call today, but voting instead

Ryan,

Oups... I must get tired, I completely missed your comment about "leaving the consensus on the mailing list". Apologize. I thought that you meant to have "all work done on the mailing list". My arguments were going in the direction to keep the calls, but I understand now that I did not need to convince you. 
Regarding the consensus discussions, I think your request is fair, and what we can do is to make effort to put items on the agenda, only when there is a chance to reach consensus and avoid looping discussion. 

Regards,
Virginie



-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@w3.org] 
Sent: lundi 19 novembre 2012 22:11
To: GALINDO Virginie
Cc: Ryan Sleevi; Mark Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: Re: W3C Web Crypto WG - no conf call today, but voting instead

On 11/19/2012 10:07 PM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if I was not clear : I mean one call every two weeks, with alternate timing.
> Which would give, for instance :  Week 1 : call @20:00 UTC, Week 2 : no call, Week 3 call @15:00 UTC, Week 4 : no call...
>
> To answer Ryan's comment : we can always cancel the call if there is nothing to discuss, or if there is no attendee on the call - up to now we used to have 10 to 15 participants, which demonstrates an interest, I guess. Personally, I do believe that there is value to have live discussions among participants.
>
> Regards,
> Virginie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
> Sent: lundi 19 novembre 2012 21:55
> To: Harry Halpin
> Cc: Mark Watson; GALINDO Virginie; public-webcrypto@w3.org
> Subject: Re: W3C Web Crypto WG - no conf call today, but voting 
> instead
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 06:14 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
>>
>> Virginie,
>>
>> Do you really mean bi-weekly? i.e. once every two weeks? Or do you 
>> mean weekly with alternating times.
>>
>> The proposal is biweekly with alternating times, but both meetings 
>> would have decision-making power. HOWEVER, this would mean that the 
>> chair has to attend both meetings (with W3C staff) and that proposals 
>> need to be made to the mailing list ahead of time for both meetings, 
>> so both meetings can have consensus at the meeting.
>>
>>     cheers,
>>        harry
>>
>>
>> My vote is neutral, because I would have to leave the 7am PST calls at 7.45.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:28 AM, "GALINDO Virginie"
>> <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to make things clear, there will be no conference call today.
>>
>>
>>
>> You may take this free time to consider answering the proposed 
>> resolution to have our calls on a bi-weekly basis with
>>
>> -          one Monday @20:00 UTC (and not 18:00 UTC as stated in my previous
>> email)
>>
>> -          one Monday @15:00 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>> If resolution is accepted, we will start next week with this timing.
>> Thanks for indicating your support with +1 or -1.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Virginie
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Can we just leave consensus to the mailing list, and use the phone meetings to work out details / answer questions / review the spec?
>
> Given that the past few issues on consensus have ended up spanning several phone calls, due to various participants being unable to attend phone/in-person meetings, it seems simpler to use the phone for high-bandwidth discussions that result in proposals then directed to the mail list for final consensus.

In general, consensus happens in meetings at W3C, not over list like IETF. However, we can send proposals to list ahead of both meetings and do two separate consensus meetings so no-one is left out!

Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 21:18:34 UTC