W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Charter task force - list of volunteers

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 14:25:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO-omeA3=nz58L3H-BQH1h7eOSjtN3j7_H37xrV_wEp6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
wrote:

> On 20/05/2015 19:15, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>>     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
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#Consensus).
>> I would prefer to simply remove this text and point to the process,
>> rather than trying to figure out
>> whether there is a conflict.
>>
>
> Note that this text is already in our current charter.


Yeah, I just noticed that. I don't think it's great but in view of that I'll
withdraw my objection.



>
>>     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?
>>
>
> Some groups operate under a work mode where editors are defining specs on
> their own, and unless someone complains, the stuff is assumed to have
> consensus. This works well in cases where the complexity or the stakes
> around a given spec aren't very high. The intent here is to make it clear
> that the WebRTC WG is not operating under such a mode.
>

OK, well, I certainly didn't get that. Perhaps a rewrite is in order.

-Ekr
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 21:26:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:44 UTC