Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸 (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Thursday, 15-Jan-2026 22:03:57 JST Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸

   • bengo
   • Darius Kazemi

   @julian @bengo @darius task forces continue. We'll use a staging process; most work will continue in the CG. There was a great session in the last CG meeting about this.

   • Embed this notice
     bengo (bengo@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Jan-2026 07:57:32 JST bengo

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi

     @darius @evan @julian The CG decision policy, ie the group which ostensibly decided to approve a charter, *requires* the chair be elected. The CG Chair has not been elected ever. And yet we are talking about what the CG has decided by consensus as determined by a completely different policy than the CG charter's decision policy requires. It's so clear an outcome was decided and all process that made that inconvenient is ignored, so I just can't let this misinfo spread that process requires WG.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸 (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Friday, 16-Jan-2026 07:57:32 JST Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸

     in reply to

     • bengo
     • Darius Kazemi

     @bengo @darius @julian I'm not sure the charter says that the Chair ever has to be elected. "Participants in this group choose their Chair(s) and can replace their Chair(s) at any time using whatever means they prefer." After adopting the charter, we never changed the Chair -- he just stayed in place. I agree that it's well past time for us to have an election, but I don't see where consensus can only be evaluated by an elected Chair. What am I missing?

   • Embed this notice
     Darius Kazemi (darius@friend.camp)'s status on Friday, 16-Jan-2026 07:57:33 JST Darius Kazemi

     in reply to

     • bengo

     @bengo @evan @julian The idea is not just to make class 1 and 2 changes per 6.2.6. The idea is to make class 3 and 4 changes as well. That was in scope of what we discussed during the many meetings about the WG charter.

     And I think the fact of the charter getting approved by the CG represents consensus? I wouldn't have agreed to be chair of a group I felt was illegitimate. (I know the consensus does not reflect unanimous consensus. I'm okay with that.)

   • Embed this notice
     bengo (bengo@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Jan-2026 07:57:33 JST bengo

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi

     @darius @evan @julian

     > The idea is to make class 3 and 4 changes as well.

     It's a bad and unfair idea, is what i"m saying. Totally respect your position if you disagree.

     > And I think the fact of the charter getting approved by the CG represents consensus?

     Another half truth. CG consensus is entirely determined by the CG chair. There could be a vast majority against something, and if the CG Chair says there is consensus, there is. 'consensus' is very malleable due to this.

   • Embed this notice
     Darius Kazemi (darius@friend.camp)'s status on Friday, 16-Jan-2026 07:57:34 JST Darius Kazemi

     in reply to

     • bengo

     @evan @julian @bengo As chair of the new working group: I want as much work as possible done in the (community oriented, open) CG. I want the CG to bring proposals to the WG and I want the WG to reach out to the CG when we have needs.

     The WG exists because W3C policy states that a CG cannot publish normative W3C specifications, only a (Members-only) WG can. I'm going to do the best I can to make the WG run as openly as possible within the framework handed to me.

   • Embed this notice
     bengo (bengo@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Jan-2026 07:57:34 JST bengo

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi

     @darius @evan @julian

     Darius, that's only partially true. Per policy, CG cannot publish normative specifications. It's NOT true that "only a WG can". S6.2.6 explicitly describes how AP can be updated without a WG. It requires W3C staff help, and requires backwards compatibility. Clarifying and improving the spec has always been possible without a WG, but not if W3C staff obstructs it, and not when insiders are determined to publish breaking changes despite lack of consensus.

   • Embed this notice
     bengo (bengo@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-Jan-2026 07:57:34 JST bengo

     in reply to

     • Darius Kazemi

     @darius @evan @julian I made the point in SWICG meeting years ago. W3C staff seemed to agree. https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/435#issuecomment-2065436813

     There's no reason to keep repeating the half truth because it sounds true, but it's not, so it has clearly caused confusion. If that's the only reason we have a WG, we don't need one. There are other reasons.

     There has not been CG consensus on a request to republish AP, and this is a way of venue shopping to a much smaller consensus group.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸 (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Friday, 16-Jan-2026 08:01:45 JST Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸

     in reply to

     • bengo
     • Darius Kazemi

     @bengo @darius @julian I'm going to bring this up on the mailing list, by the way. I think it's time for us to hold an election.