- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:54:19 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9901 Summary: co-chairs should also address objections raised in change proposals Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: Macintosh OS/Version: Mac System 9.x Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: working group Decision Policy AssignedTo: dave.null@w3.org ReportedBy: shelleyp@burningbird.net QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mjs@apple.com, Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com, rubys@intertwingly.net, mike@w3.org Recently the co-chairs made a decision regarding two change proposals for issues 90 and 91: removing the figure and aside elements[1]. The decisions given were based solely on the objections given in the survey and did not address objections or concerns raised in the change proposal (or counter proposal for that matter). Yet the chairs specifically stated not to re-state the objections given in the proposals, which means that arguments given in both documents were not addressed in the decisions. I would recommend two changes to the decision process: 1. When the change or counter proposal is submitted that the chairs not only confirm that it meets the proposal process format (and in the case of recent counter-proposals, help the person to strengthen their case), the co-chairs briefly list what they perceive to be the objections in the proposals--whether it is an objection against not making a change, or an objection against making the change. Then allow the editors to modify their documents (over a brief period of time), if they felt their objections were not being perceived. 2. Address these objections in any decision. To ignore the proposals is to reduce the decision process down to nothing more than a poll. Considering that only a handful of people now respond to anything in the HTML WG (though the membership stays at 400+), relying purely on a poll is not in the interests of ensuring the needs of the web community are being met. This change might help prevent Formal Objections. At a minimum, if the person does formally object, they have a basis for the objection. The co-chairs not addressing all of the concerns is little different than the HTML5 editor not providing a sufficient rationale when he marks a change WONTFIX. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 12:54:20 UTC