Disposition of Comments for the 2023 cycle of the W3C Process

Live list from GitHub.

Static copy of this list at the time of writing:

• 729: Use Alias rather than Redirect for /Consortium/Process
• 727: FPWD → CRS transition has onerous change documentation requirements
• 726: Candidate Recommendation Draft vs "return to Working Draft"
• 725: Registry report requirements
• 714: Rename Acknowledgement (for Member submission requests)
• 712: Are Statements fit for purpose?
• 700: Clarify and simplify the sections regarding publication and process 2021
• 699: Mandate default custodianship for Registries if the specified custodian is no longer available
• 698: Votes transparency
• 697: Incumbent bias in elections / impose term limits?
• 694: Incomplete Term Assignment Choices
• 689: Should we create an Emeritus status for prior AB/TAG/BoD members
• 661: editorial: textual inconsistencies in basic-rec-track.svg
• 651: Charter Approval
• 650: Charter creation
• 649: Who convenes Workshops?
• 648: Should member submissions be removed from the Process?
• 639: Member submissions: can anyone else object, and if so, can they object to acceptance?
• 638: REC track diagram does not reflect normative text
• 625: Favoring weakest objections
• 615: a role should be a role, not a task
• 604: Consider making thresholds relative to active participation
• 597: Require registries to include "enough" standardized entries
• 596: Recommendation track diagram does not show Rec maintenance
• 590: Simplify Process 2021 (candidate|proposed) (change|addition|correction) terminology
• 589: The 2021 "Revising a Recommendation Process" is painful for WGs
• 582: Representing the W3C
• 580: Charter review process
• 574: Order of precedence of Membership Agreement, Process document and normative references
• 568: More clarity on where a "candidate addition" lives
• 561: Is a Community Group the right place to develop our own Process?
• 560: Who can initiate and prepare a Charter?
• 555: Introduction text
• 554: Organisation of 3.4 "Chartered Groups: Working Groups and Interest Groups"
• 553: Guidance for removing features in continuously-updated CRs
• 522: Single implementations and interoperability: showing implementation experience with fewer implementations
• 521: Approval Vote Experiment Questions
• 518: [patent policy] Exclusion opportunity when work leaves a Working Group
• 517: Related Members
• 484: reconsider STV
• 481: Whistle blower
• 475: Ensure each proposal fulfils the goals of the W3C
• 469: Anonymous input for offline debate
• 465: Increase size of the TAG?
• 464: Clarify deadline for nominations
• 460: Do we need a procedural track for "disclosure" documents?
• 456: Identify and (explain or change) W3C jargon words
• 450: CRD may be followed by a Proposed Recommendation
• 442: Need for Policy for Submission Requests
• 425: Have the normal, default, decision policy for charters in the process
• 422: What's the point of what the Process has to say about Liasons
• 421: Simplify member submissions
• 419: Remove section of the Process on Workshop and Symposia
• 414: Tighten the Scope for definition of Working Groups
• 409: Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process
• 373: ambiguous statement for proxy in WG/IG
• 329: Guidance for registry creation
• 328: TAG and AB should be able to formally review charters
• 326: Community and Business Groups
• 281: Chair appointment community involvement, transparency, enabling objections and handling them
• 251: First meeting of a WG allowed too soon
• 182: Define charter review process to require addressing comments as in CR transitions
• 167: define "independent"
• 157: Should the process include something about Testing?
• 120: Process should say how W3T can update NOTES
• 115: We need to consider equal-preference voting

Live list from GitHub.

Live list from GitHub.

Static copy of this list at the time of writing:

• 731: editorial change to harmonize "website"/"Web site"
• 730: Use “W3C”, not “the W3C”
• 728: Editorial: "W3C" as a proper noun
• 720: Fix up inconsistencies in the confidentiality of FOs and Council Reports
• 719: Speak of *a* Council, not *the* Council
• 718: Change who ratifies the TAG appointees
• 717: Should a team-confidential formal objection lead to a team-confidential council report?
• 715: Ratification of TAG appointments
• 713: export registry-related terms for ease of reference
• 710: "The W3C Council" should often be "A W3C Council"
• 711: Editorial cleanup regarding normative dependencies of the Process
• 709: Enable changes of chair in a Council
• 706: Simplify phrasing about council composition
• 705: Correct reference to W3C Document / Software licensing
• 704: Clarify interactions between AC / Team / Board about MoUs
• 703: Introduce path to shortcut the Council
• 702: Include Council Team Contact in the confidence of the Council
• 701: Clarify role of Council Team Contact (and define the term)
• 696: Update conditions for proposing closure of a group
• 691: Clarify what the CR review period is
• 688: Should W3C continue to stagger AB/TAG elections ?
• 685: Reintroduce the conditions for closure of a group
• 684: Broken link to suspension guidelines.
• 681: [Editorial] Adjust grounding of RF distribution of specifications
• 680: [Editorial] Where Formal Objection is defined, identify milder ways to express disagreement
• 679: [editorial] Council composition statement spends too much time on exceptions
• 678: Possibly dismissing a Formal Objection before it goes to full Council?
• 677: Rename Member Consortia to Member Associations
• 676: Clarify that AC appeal requests and rationale can be shared with the Membership
• 675: Clarify timing of TAG and AB chair selection
• 674: Clarify what can be formally objected to
• 670: Clarify AC and BoD priority when signing MoUs and similar contracts
• 669: Set up AB-BoD liaisons
• 668: AB liaisons to the Board
• 666: “Member Consortium” vs “Member Association”—Synchronize with the Bylaws
• 665: The council may report vote totals
• 664: Allow the CEO to delegate their seat on the Council
• 660: Broaden who may propose group closure
• 659: Clarify expectations about FO mitigations
• 658: Remove references to the Hosts, replace with BoD
• 654: Define CRS/CRD abbreviations, fixes #636
• 653: Closing Groups
• 652: Chair appointments
• 647: Define editorial vs substantive changes for non-REC-track documents.
• 646: Replace the role of the Director in concluding AC Review
• 645: Address necessary mitigations for sustained objections
• 644: Remove the Director
• 643: Refactor Group/Chair Decision Appeal and Formal Objection sections
• 642: Adopt the W3C Council for handing Formal objections and related matters
• 641: Mid-term Chair Appointment for TAG and AB
• 637: What is the CR Review Period?
• 636: Clarify usage of types of CR in Rec Track Diagram
• 635: Improving the definition of consensus
• 634: Improving the definition of consensus
• 633: Allow CEO to delegate position on the Council
• 624: Inconsistency in managing dissent
• 621: Enable the Council to delegate ruling of specific FOs
• 620: Ensuring charters fit the mission and values of W3C
• 619: Provide an explicit advance notice period for MoUs
• 618: Does the Council need the ability to defer decisions to someone else under some (rare) circumstances?
• 614: editorial: rm undefined COO from informal Note
• 613: Continuity of TAG appointments
• 612: Rename "maturity level" into "maturity stage"
• 611: Director-free TAG
• 610: Use "verification" rather than "approval"
• 609: "approval" vs "verification"
• 606: Include Membership input ahead of MoU decision
• 605: Recording council disagreements
• 603: Should appeal request be shared with the Membership?
• 602: Simplify announcements of charter extensions
• 601: What is and can be Member-Confidential
• 598: Superfluous information requirement in 4.5 “Charter extension”
• 591: Expect supporting materials to be archived
• 586: Let the Team rather than the Director handle progression on TR
• 585: Make the Team responsible for Group creation and Closure
• 584: Moving from Draft Registry to Candidate Registry
• 583: Unintentional definitite article "the group"
• 579: Minor editorial fixes from Process 2021
• 578: Director responsibilities in the technical development process
• 577: All previews are 404
• 567: Use "allow new features" terminology consistently
• 566: Fix build scripts
• 565: Build the process without deploying in forks and pull requests
• 564: Don't attempt to deploy Pull Requests
• 563: Stop excluding AC rep comments from those that have to be addressed
• 562: Make it possible to transition from REC to WD
• 559: Make the Team handle various participation-related judgement calls
• 558: Move disciplinary authority and power from the Director to the CEO
• 557: Let the Team handle Member Submissions
• 556: Make the CEO rather than the Director responsible for MoUs
• 552: Archiving discussion attachments
• 523: Speed of resolving formal objections for new charters
• 498: TAG appointment committee should exclude those also up for re-appointment
• 497: Anonymous formal objections
• 496: Requirements for advancement to Recommendation
• 492: Should we make it explicit that participation in the Council does not require travel?
• 491: Deadline for the council to process FOs
• 467: External facilitation
• 458: Who handles discipline when it isn't the Director?
• 455: Maturity Level is a weird term
• 433: Simplify the text on liaisons
• 394: Formalise HRG as mandatory by default
• 393: [meta] Eliminate role of The Director and redistribute authority from The Team to W3C members & community
• 392: Process details that should NOT be owned by W3M/Team/CEO
• 368: TAG appointed participants announcement by Director
• 360: Director-less issues
• 356: Streamlining the Process Document
• 339: Why can AC comments on CR be ignored?
• 327: W3C Council should be limited to one vote per member organization
• 316: The Elephant in the Director-free Room
• 314: Consensus in the TAG Appointment Committee - Formal Objections
• 310: TAG chair selection timing
• 299: Make it clear than any decision can be objected to
• 293: [director-free] Should the Council be all TAG+AB, or smaller and separately elected?
• 291: "W3C Council" may have to hear information in confidence
• 290: How does W3C Council handle membership turnover?
• 284: CEO is part of the AB, and ex-officio participant in Objection Decision Committee
• 280: What to do when there's no consensus in the Council
• 279: What can the Objection Decision Committee actually decide?
• 278: Recusal from FO handling
• 276: Generalize FO-handling
• 275: discipline and CEO recusal
• 103: Should the process allow REC->WD transition directly?
• 76: Should there be good standing / supermajority criteria in authoritative ballots?
• 28: Substantive changes undefined for Charter, Process reviews, and things other than specifications

Live list from GitHub.

Static copy of this list at the time of writing:

• 695: TAG charter needs revision for Director-free alignment
• 673: MoUs need splitting between formal contractual relationships, and true memoranda of understanding
• 672: Grace period for contributing to specifications?
• 663: Mo u notice
• 657: Host-free
• 640: Rename Acknowledgement to Acceptance (for Member submission requests)
• 631: Sustaining an FO should always require super-majority support
• 630: FO Council should not be allowed to delegate its responsibility
• 623: Change from recusal to dismissal/renunciation
• 622: Should potential appointees to the TAG be required to stand for election, to be eligible for another term?
• 592: Allow Chairs to suspend an individual temporarily
• 588: Terminology for team support of the W3C Council
• 587: Cite Horizontal Review in Sec. 6.4.3
• 536: Editorial Changes are ill-defined outside of REC-track documents
• 447: Horizontal/Wide review for IG/CG/BGs?
• 366: Setup document management for director-free matters
• 337: Link to document on formal objection processing
• 315: TAG Appointment Committee composition
• 311: Filling appointed TAG seats that have been vacated
• 277: CEO recusal while handling FOs

Live list from GitHub.

Live list from GitHub.

Live list from GitHub.

Static copy of this list at the time of writing:

• 629: The team should not be expected to recommend a disposition of an FO
• 608: Simplifying TAG Appointment Committee
• 581: Sufficient time for Council Members to give decisions their full attention
• 551: Ensure all specs & standards have published user research? [from TAG process repo]
• 495: Are certain (categories of) members entitled to AB/TAG representation?
• 462: Process should ask or maybe require folks requesting a document transition to CR to describe why/how they think the document is likely to exit CR
• 457: Proposal for a Directorate
• 447: Horizontal/Wide review for IG/CG/BGs?
• 331: Please reconsider director-free formal objection handling
• 313: Team-Appointed TAG Chair(s)
• 230: TAG appointment should be via IETF style nomcom
• 141: provide clearer/common wording for transitions to Obsolete/Superseded status

Live list from GitHub.

Static copy of this list at the time of writing:

• 443: Stronger emphasis on reaching Recommendation

Live list from Github.

Number:

Issue 628

Title:

Limit the scope of FO Council deliberations

From:

Pierre-Anthony Lemieux

Summary:

The FO Council should sustain an FO only if rejecting the FO would necessarily result in a violation of the W3C process. As it stands, there are no limitations to what folks can file as FO and what the Council will consider.

Resolution to close:

RESOLVED: Close 628 no change, flag Commenter Not Satisfied

Summary of rationale to close:

W3C normally makes decisions by consensus. Formal objections happen when we fail to reach consensus (regardless of why) but try to move forward anyway. The Council is there to determine the best way forward in the face of irreconcilable differences of opinion, not to adjudicate right vs wrong in terms of rules being followed. Simple process violations typically result in the team handling them, not FOs. Focusing the Council solely on process violations would make the Council mostly useless.

AB Confirmation:

RESOLUTION: “The AB accepts the resolution of issue #628 knowing it was closed over objection.”

Number:

Issue 478

Title:

Appeal process for proposals

From:

James Rosewell

Summary:

From the opening GitHub comment:

Group chairs [should] make the initial decision should a complaint be received relating to the scope of a proposal fulfilling the goals of the W3C as defined in the membership agreement […] within 7 elapsed days. […] Should disagreement remain, the General Counsel of the W3C [would] be asked to intervene by at least one member to seek to obtain consensus within 7 elapsed days. Should consensus still not be possible a majority vote of the AC […] [should] make the final decision within 7 elapsed days. In the event of a tie arbitration [should] be used to resolve the matter.

Resolution to close:

RESOLVED: #478 is closed

Summary of rationale to close:

Full details in GitHub comment, with the main point being:

“Adding” an appeal process would be redundant with existing appeal processes. From expressing disagreement when a proposal is initially made, to registering dissent, to having FOs processed by the Council, to having the ability to file an AC Appeal, there's already a path to express and escalate disagreement, and no decision is final until these are all exhausted.

AB Confirmation:

RESOLUTION: “The AB accepts the resolution of issue #478 as summarized in w3c/w3process#478 (comment)”.