W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2019

Re: Summary of TAG resolutions on Director-Free Process proposals

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:08:52 -0700
Message-Id: <F4B133C8-4761-45BA-9BA4-FF6E6E0E8FE2@gbiv.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
To: Peter Linss <w3c@linss.com>
> On Sep 16, 2019, at 7:51 PM, Peter Linss <w3c@linss.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 5:09 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com <mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 2:33 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 9/15/19 8:16 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>>>> [dropping Process CG and AB]
>>>> [adding back AB members who were in the TAG session]
>>>> On 9/13/2019 5:21 AM, fantasai wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Topic: W3C Objection Decision Council
>>>>> 
>>>>> RESOLVED: Council should pick its own chair, per issue, by consensus,
>>>>>          falling back to a vote if that fails. (Goal is to choose a
>>>>>          neutral chair for the topic.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> RESOLVED: Chair must be a member of the Council
>>>>> 
>>>>> RESOLVED: If FO not resolved in X days, chair MUST report status to AC.
>>>>>          Report MAY be public. Suggest 90 < X < 180. 
>>>> It is not clear to me that these were proper resolutions of the TAG since I had raised an issue with them, which AFAICT was not addressed.  I apologize that due to the use of Google Hangouts, the fact that I was in China, and poor connectivity (I was driving in a car for much of the session), I did not adequately tee up my issue.  Now with more time and space, let me raise the issue more completely.
>>> 
>>> It's up to the chair of the TAG to confirm whether these are proper resolutions of the TAG, but they did seem to reflect the consensus of the TAG members in the room, they were each posted on the white board explicitly for consideration by the TAG, and there was an explicit call for consensus prior to each point being marked as resolved.
>> 
>> FWIW, the TAG's charter specifically excludes "administrative, process, or organizational policy issues of W3C".
>> 
>>   https://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html <https://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html>
>>   https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#TAG <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#TAG>
>> 
>> and thus all of those "resolutions" are out of scope for the TAG as a decision-making body.
>> 
>> It would be better to drop these formalities and just minute the discussion and opinions
>> presented.  The Team, AB, and AC can listen to well-informed opinions without them being
>> listed as TAG resolutions.
> 
> The TAG is well aware that we have no formal role in dictating the process of the W3C. 
> 
> These “resolutions” were meant only to reflect the consensus opinion of the TAG regarding possible directions for the process when we were directly asked for such by members of the AB. We have no expectation that these would be binding on the AB, but are merely input towards future discussions that the AB may choose to have.
> 
> A more accurate depiction would be: “RESOLVED, the TAG is of the opinion that…"

No. That's not what it means to be out of scope, nor is it rational for a committee to have
an opinion. Individuals have opinions. You are all important individuals, regardless of the
process and formal role of the TAG. I have no doubt that is why people want to know what
you think. State your own opinions.

The TAG was designed to be outside the scope of process, on purpose. The current AB
might be unaware of that history; I am certainly not blaming the TAG for responding
to a question that should not have been asked in the first place. However, that doesn't
change the TAG's charter, nor does it remove the reasons for process being out of scope.

....Roy


Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2019 16:09:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:17 UTC