W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > April 2009

RE: renaming enableHighAccuracy

From: Allan Thomson (althomso) <althomso@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:59:49 -0700
Message-ID: <18B307BFDE5098438B0BF42A4E508FB5081DB531@xmb-sjc-228.amer.cisco.com>
To: "Matt Womer" <mdw@w3.org>
Cc: "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Thanks for the information.

Hopefully we can reach agreement on this like other features.

allan

-----Original Message-----
From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-geolocation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matt Womer
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:57 PM
To: Allan Thomson (althomso)
Cc: public-geolocation
Subject: Re: renaming enableHighAccuracy

Hi Allan,

> All - Being new to this group I would like to understand the rules  
> for how disagreement is supposed to be resolved. I think we have  
> clear disagreement here and despite my best attempt to understand  
> how this attribute provides value I still don't see it.
>
> IETF works based on consensus.
>
> IEEE works requires 3/4 approval votes.
>
> So how are contentious issues resolved? I presume it doesn't come  
> down to one person or one company opinion.
>
> Can you point me to the process or rules?

The W3C works based on "consensus" too...  consensus being defined in  
the process document here:
	http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/

with the relevant section being:
	
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus

You'll find it leaves a lot of flexibility for how a group may arrive  
at consensus.  In essence it defines a process for formally objecting  
to a group decision and making sure that such an objection gets  
recorded, reported and given appropriate consideration.

Thus far the group has been able to reach consensus without formal  
votes and very few resolutions.

-Matt
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 21:00:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 March 2012 18:13:43 GMT