W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2010

[Bug 9901] New: co-chairs should also address objections raised in change proposals

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:54:19 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-9901-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 June 2010 12:54:22 GMT