-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 132
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[director-free] Gratuitous mentions of the Director #254
Conversation
While I agree with Florian's logic, since we IAC plan to relook at the Role of the Director, I would prefer not to make this change at this time. Making the change will require me to find the Director to ensure that he agrees, which seems like an unnecessary intrusion on his time under these circumstances. |
@jeffjaffe For any change to regarding the Director that actually changes what the Director does, I'd agree that we should not do that without involving him. I feel more comfortable with this edit because because it is effectively a stylistic edit, that doesn't change anything other than how many time the word "Director" is mentioned. I think the substantive discussions about the role of the Director, which ever way they go, will be simplified if we can look at the process that mentions the Director when he actually has a role, so that we don't have to deal with the mental overhead (and the git conflicts) or remembering that half the time he's mentioned it doesn't actually do anything. |
OK. Let's do all the "role of the Director" edits on a branch, with reasonably distinct pull requests for each 'layer', roughly:
I think there was some thought that maybe we could do the first two on main branch, but on reflection, it's probably better to do all this in a sandbox. |
e15c578
to
8ab7282
Compare
8ab7282
to
73e6df2
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
understand anything I'm sorry I'm Newton this thing
A number of sentences in the Process made mentions of the Director that did not add any information, for example by mentioning something like “the Director’s decision to FOO” when FOO is already defined to be something only the Director can decide. This removes all such redundant mentions of the Director. This commit does not change any of the Director’s powers.
Announcements which are required by the process and do not involve a judgement call or a decision are handled by the Team. The Team, as per the Process, claims to do so in the name of the Director, but given that these do not involve a Director's decision, this claim isn't particularly meaningful. This commit replaces “the Director” by “the Team” in such cases, to better reflect reality. Besides, the Director is defined to be part of the Team anyway, so he can still make the announcements himself or have an announcement sent on his behalf in cases where that would feel more appropriate. This commit does not change any of the Director’s powers.
eeabf9f
to
c939c6b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Thanks for this detailed work!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
one point of suggested clarification once "Director" is removed from the sentence.
|
||
[=Transition Requests=] to [=First Public Working Draft=] | ||
or [=Candidate Recommendation=] | ||
will not normally be approved | ||
while a [=Working Group=]'s [=charter=] is undergoing or awaiting a [=Director=]'s decision | ||
while a [=Working Group=]'s [=charter=] is undergoing or awaiting a decision | ||
on an [=Advisory Committee Review=].</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/on an AC Review/after an AC Review/ for clarity
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I prefer it the way it is, but I don't feel strongly. Any third opinion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
agree to leave it unchanged
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<fantasai> Topic: Director-Free<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/254 <jeff> q+ <dsinger_> ack jef <fantasai> florian: One comment by wendy, I disagree, neither feels strongly <fantasai> fantasai: They needed a tiebreaker, so I'll break in favor of no change <fantasai> wseltzer rescinds change request so that we can all move forward and merge in these changes <fantasai> dsinger_: OK, let's execute. if we catch error, can fix <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept DF PR |
This pull request removes a number of gratuitous / decorative / redundant mentions of the Director. It changes nothing about the decision power of the Director, instead it focuses on two things (in separate commits):