Adopt the W3C Council for handing Formal objections and related matters #642
Conversation
frivoal
added
Director-free: FO/Council
|
@chrisn (But Chris isn't taggable here?) the problem with "No one shall be both a party and an adjudicator" was the realization of defining exactly who a party is. The AC Rep that filed the FO maybe, but they formally file on behalf of anyone in their organization; they might not have a strong personal opinion (or even agree). On the other side, identifying the key supporting parties is much much harder. The chair of the WG? They might be 'just' a facilitator? Editor? The same. Major proponents of the approach or detail in question? How would we identify them? Hence we tried to leave it to the dismissal. I think adding "Anyone who is clearly a party to the dispute" to the "possible reasons to think about" in the Guide, if not already there, does make sense. |
index.bs
Outdated
| The Team Contact <em class="rfc2119">must</em> inform the Director | ||
| when a group participant has raised concerns about due process. | ||
| The Team Contact <em class="rfc2119">must</em> inform the [=CEO=] | ||
| when a group participant has also raised concerns about due process. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the participant might have raised an FO, in which case the CEO doesn't need to be informed, but if they raised concerns about due process specifically, the CEO must be informed. (The “also” is clarifying that this is a distinct additional requirement for this subcase.)
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed The full IRC log of that discussion<fantasai> Subtopic: Adopt the W3C Council for handing Formal objections and related matters<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/642 <fantasai> florian: Imagine we just merged in all the things we agreed to merge <fantasai> ... now we have Everything About the COuncil <fantasai> ... I think we mostly know what it's about :) <fantasai> ... Do people like the details? <fantasai> plh: If we agree to merge, that's fine, but once we get comfortable with the Draft, reread and check the ramifications <fantasai> florian: Absolutely <fantasai> ... If we have a major problem, we shouldn't merge, but merging will make it all easier to review <fantasai> plh: if you find an issue later, we'll come back to it <jeff> q+ <fantasai> ... we will give a chance to CG to have a full read <plh> ack jeff <fantasai> florian: This PR includes everything discussed until now <fantasai> ... somie tweaks and editorial things <fantasai> ... and the other things we decided to merge earlier today will land together with this <plh> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/w3process/642/4ee7660...b879c6f.html <fantasai> plh: It's too long to review on the call <fantasai> ... so first question is, did ppl have a chance to look at this or would people want more time to look at it? <cwilso> (looked at it, +1) <fantasai> florian: This is not radical if you've been following the whole Council thing we've been doing <fantasai> ... most of this should be expected, just while preparing we made some tweaks <pal> q+ <fantasai> plh: does anyone need more time? <tzviya> +1 to merge <plh> ack pal <fantasai> <fantasai> +1 to merge <fantasai> pal: I don't have any concern with merging, because will make the review easier <fantasai> ... but I do have significant concerns with bar for forming council <fantasai> ... but happy to discuss that against the merged draft <dsinger> q+ <jeff> q+ <plh> ack dsinger <fantasai> ... merging makes it easier to review proposal in the entirety <fantasai> dsinger: having things in separate PRs makes both editor's lives harder and our lives harder, better off if we merge and continue to refine <plh> ack jeff <fantasai> ... so that we have a single document to review <fantasai> jeff: I also agree with merging <fantasai> ... for all the reasons stated earlier, plus I have no disagreements with the text either <fantasai> jeff: I think the point about review is extremely important <fantasai> ... usually we send for AC review when we think we're done, but this is so significant <fantasai> ... we should not only end it to AB but encourage AB to send it out for an early review with the AC now, even though we're not ready yet <fantasai> ... because got to get the AC engaged and looking at it earlier <fantasai> ... earlier we do that, less time in the end <plh> ack fantasai <fantasai> ... we should get wider review of this document once merged <plh> fantasai: +1 to Jeff for sending it out for early review <plh> ... any objeciton to merge? <plh> Resolved: Merge #642 <fantasai> i/... any objeciton/... but we have some outstanding items to fix first, so let's fix those first/ |
| not two. | ||
|
|
||
| In the case of non-unanimous decisions, | ||
| members of the [=W3C Council=] who disagree with the decision |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| members of the [=W3C Council=] who disagree with the decision | |
| any member of the [=W3C Council=] who disagrees with the decision |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think either phrasing would be correct, but the current one evokes more the idea that multiple people could write a single Minority Opinion whereas your proposed phrasing evokes more the idea that each person could write their own Minority Opinion. (Both phrasing allow either, but the emphasis is different.) I would lean towards the collective Minority Opinion since I think that would be a more natural way for the Council to lean.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Even if it is subtle, I think it's worth pushing even a little bit for people to try and agree with each other. A single Minority Opinion can cite multiple arguments in any case.
This includes Formal Objection handling, AC Reviews, and Appeals. Co-authored-by: chaals <chaals@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Adopting wording from #327 (comment)
Based on experience, give more time for the Team phase of FO processing, and less for the Council phase.
Co-authored-by: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Based on the changes introduced by the director free project and introduction of the Council, these are no longer meaningfully different. Merging them makes the Process shorter, easier to understand, and reduces the amount of specialized terminology we need to introduce.
frivoal
added
Closed: Accepted
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This pull requests integrates all the changes prepared over the years for the director-free branches related to handling of formal objections by the W3C Council, and related matters.
The commits presented here do not attempt to reflect the full history of changes: these would be too many to comfortably review, often adding changes and the reverting or changing them further. Instead, these commits try to split the matter in largely thematic edits.
Preview | Diff