W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2011

[Bug 11637] Disallow abusing the Decision Policy by escalating editorial bugs

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:32:09 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PwkqP-0005Vi-2j@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11637

--- Comment #3 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-03-08 00:32:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't think this is helpful, as it will lead to arguments about whether a bug
> is editorial or not.

If someone has escalated a bug, then we are already having an argument.  It
would be nice if we could *end* the more clear-cut arguments quickly, by
allowing the chairs to reject meritless change proposals without having to
request counter-proposals and do a survey first.


In that light, let me make a different suggestion.  When someone submits a
change proposal, the chairs may choose to consider it immediately on its
technical merits.  In doing so, they would use an extremely lax standard: they
should only reject it if it presents so little evidence or reasoning that they
feel they'd reject it after a survey even if there were no meaningful arguments
presented against it.  This might be the case for a Change Proposal that
provides no evidence or reasoning at all that it has any desirable effects
(including almost any CP asking for only aesthetic changes).

If the chairs rejected a change proposal like this, it would be the same as if
they rejected it for having missing sections: the proposer would be allowed to
revise and re-submit it, subject to the usual deadlines.

The chairs would of course be free to go ahead with a full survey whenever they
liked.  This change would only allow them to save the Working Group's time and
their own in cases where they felt there would be no possible way for the
Change Proposal to succeed.  Currently, by contrast, it seems the chairs only
ensure that Change Proposals have the correct sections before accepting them. 
Of course, members of the Working Group might want to suggest that the chairs
invoke the procedure on some particular Change Proposal, but they wouldn't be
obliged to.

It might make sense to wait for the WG decision on at least one pending issue
that's alleged to be frivolous.  If the chairs issue a decision that rejects a
Change Proposal essentially because it makes no case for the change at all, it
would provide evidence that a policy adjustment would be useful.

-- 
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 Tuesday, 8 March 2011 00:32:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 00:32:30 GMT