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

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

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:23:09 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1ONxSH-0007qi-TK@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #1 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>  2010-06-14 00:23:09 ---

In the case of <figure> and <aside>, the decisions documents said, "The counter
proposal provides rationale for the feature."  Elaborating on how that
rationale trumps the points Shelley raised in her Change Proposal would have
been beneficial. For instance fundamental questions presented like:

* Reason for existence of the feature/why a special purpose element is judged
to be required.[*]
* Is the feature judged by the chairs to be semantically meaningful or not? 
* Is it structurally useful or not?
* Are the costs to HTML editors, Content Management Systems, and other tools
* etc.

The decisions documents did a good job of detailing rationale for most of the
survey comments. However, it may have helped people understand the decision and
facilitated acceptance if specific rationale points which were raised in the
change proposals/counter proposals themselves had been addressed.

[*] An inherent Catch 22 kind of paradox exists in the current Commit Then
Review (CTR) decision policy. This present an inequitable balance in shifting
burden of proof in favor of "concrete features with normative text" [1] [2] ...
A feature existing, meaning that it should exist.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0002.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0003.html

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 Monday, 14 June 2010 00:23:11 UTC

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