Re: Charter task force - list of volunteers

As Dom noted in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015May/0113.html


"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.”


A big part of the reason for the formal objections to the previous charter proposal was a perception — possibly mistaken, but it was a real perception — that the WebRTC editors had been operating in the “defining specs on their own unless someone complains” mode.  An explicit decision policy in the charter goes a long way toward mitigating that perception and getting the objections withdrawn.

It’s not changing the W3C process, it’s defining in more detail how this WG would work within the process.  For example the HTML WG defined http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html as a tool to get consensus on the hard issues, and that was instrumental in finally getting an HTML5 Recommendation last year. I don’t think this WG needs anything nearly as detailed as the HTML5 Decision Policy, but writing down how the WG expects to build consensus on hard issues could help it finish WebRTC 1.0 and start work on the next version with less energy wasted on philosophical disputes.

-----Original Message—— 
From: "Cullen Jennings   (fluffy)"
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:08 PM
To: Michael Champion
Cc: Eric Rescorla, Erik Lagerway, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, "public-webrtc@w3.org", Dom Hazael-Massieux
Subject: Re: Charter task force - list of volunteers

>
>I'm strongly opposed to the charter changing the w3c process which is what often happens when you try and paraphrase a process defined elsewhere. 
>
>
>> On May 20, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:16 AM
>> To: Erik Lagerway
>> Cc: Harald Alvestrand; public-webrtc@w3.org; 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 <erik@hookflash.com> 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 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.
>>  
>> 
>> 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.
>>  
>> --
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Erik
>> 
>> Erik Lagerway | Hookflash | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter | WebRTC.is Blog 
>>  
>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> The following people volunteered for the charter task force:
>> 
>> - Andy Hutton <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
>> - Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
>> - Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@microsoft.com>
>> - Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
>> - Göran Eriksson <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
>> - Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com
>> 
>> 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 Thursday, 21 May 2015 02:06:25 UTC