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

[Bug 9898] The Decision Policy (as applied) is ineffective at getting closure on ISSUEs

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:24:30 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1ONa3y-0003s2-93@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #2 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2010-06-12 23:24:29 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I gather an important point of the Decision Policy is to manage dissent by
> establishing a due process for dealing with the dissent as opposed to having
> permathreads of claims that a particular concern hasn't been duly considered by
> the WG as a whole to go on indefinitely taking the attention of the WG
> participants and interfering with productive work at the WG.

I agree that this was an important goal for the Decision Policy.

> Now that the Chairs have, on behalf of the WG, made their Decision on some
> ISSUEs, I see almost *nothing but* emails about the subject matter of the
> ISSUEs or about the fallout of the decisions coming from public-html.
> Evidently, giving dissenters the benefit of due process didn't bring the ISSUEs
> to closure. We have both attention-exhausting permathreads *and* a heavyweight
> process. 

I haven't fully caught up on the last two weeks of email, but I can see your
point that there have been lengthy threads on the fallout from the last few

> I think this is a sign of the Decision Process not working properly. It is
> possible that this isn't a bug in the Decision Process document per se, but in
> the application of the process. Emphasizing the a Decision applies "at this
> time" is effectively an invitation to continue discussion instead of bringing
> the ISSUEs to closure.

I think we need to be more clear about the finality of Working Group Decisions,
and encourage participant only if at least one of the following holds:

(a) They have new information which was not available at the time of the
(b) They would like to raise a Formal Objection to the decision.
(c) They would like to enter an objection to the decision on the record,
without raising a Formal Objection.

In particular, the participants who made dozens of posts about a decision
without providing new information should have been advised to proceed otherwise
or take discussion elsewhere.

That being said, I am hesitant to jump into those threads now, as most of them
seem to have petered out a few days ago and I would not want to rekindle the
flames. The "request for editing guidance" thread continues, so I will read
that closely and see if any course correction is needed.

That being said: while there has been a burst of discussion about the last few
issues to be resolved, there have been at least 36 total issues have been
resolved since the decision policy has been adopted. For most of these resolved
issues, there are no ongoing permathreads and the results of the process are
generally accepted. So I am not sure it is correct to generalize from the last
three issues resolved to the process in general.

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 Saturday, 12 June 2010 23:24:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:51 UTC