RE: Charter task force - list of volunteers

The intent here, as someone noted on the call today, was to write down the commonsense approach we are actually using.  For example, the call today was run exactly as the proposed Decision Policy text suggests:  We reviewed pull requests, agreed on which to accept, and discussed how to create new ones that reflected the consensus on the call about how to resolve disagreements.  I’m sure it could be stated more crisply than in the current draft, but that’s the intent.

Writing it down in a way that reflects the tools we’re actually using rather than the boilerplate that has been in W3C charters for years helps everyone remember how we agreed to make decisions at the outset.  For example, there might be disagreements about whether an editors’ draft reflects the WG consensus or not.  To the extent we can leverage GitHub’s “paper trail” of forks, pull requests,  and merges, it should be more efficient to resolve such disagreements.

From: Eric Rescorla []
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:16 AM
To: Erik Lagerway
Cc: Harald Alvestrand;; Dominique Hazael-Massieux; Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
Subject: Re: Charter task force - list of volunteers

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Erik Lagerway <<>> wrote:
Thanks Herald,

More for Dom, I would also ask that we add the Decision Policy copy that I inadvertantly removed when doing the Charter diffs be added back in as well...


I'm not against having a decision policy but I have some questions about this one.

Decision Policy

As explained in the Process Document ( section 3.3 ), this group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a question and observes dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chair should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any objections, and move on.

This seems to paraphrase the W3C process see
I would prefer to simply remove this text and point to the process, rather than trying to figure out
whether there is a conflict.

Editors are responsible for reflecting the consensus from the Working Group in the specifications; where editors bring technical solutions in the specifications that have not been reviewed by the group, these solutions are annotated to reflect their status.

I don't really understand the clause after the semicolon. Can you expand on what this
is intended to mean?

Contributors are encouraged to bring specific modifications (e.g. as patches) to the group's specifications to facilitate their review by the group and eventual integration by the editors.



Erik Lagerway<> | Hookflash<> | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter<> | Blog<>

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Harald Alvestrand <<>> wrote:
The following people volunteered for the charter task force:

- Andy Hutton <<>>
- Dan Burnett <<>>
- Bernard Aboba <<>>
- Eric Rescorla <<>>
- Göran Eriksson <<>>
- Justin Uberti <<>

We think that we’re very close to achieving a consensus on the charter,
and if the members of this task force can all agree on a single proposal
(and agree that they agree), we think that this is worth proposing to
the group and the AC as a proposed “next generation” charter.

Naturally, this group does not have decision-making power; we have asked
them to propose something they feel that they can all agree with, and
will then bring that proposal to the WG.

Harald, for the chairs.

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 17:27:57 UTC