W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Formal Objection Tracker is missing a FO

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:46:01 -0400
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "public-html-comments@w3.org" <public-html-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1286293561.3173.96.camel@chacal>
Hi Shelley,

apologizes in the delay for responding but I'm on the road.

On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 10:07 -0500, Shelley Powers wrote:
> There is considerable confusion about how to handle Last Call comments 
> with HTML5. Since the current draft of HTML5 is not a Last Call draft, 
> is it appropriate to label any concerns in the bugzilla database as Last 
> Call comments? I thought the W3C procedures specifically state that 
> there is a formal call for comments for Last Call drafts?

Mike has been doing some work on the bugzilla system earlier today so I
expect some of the confusion is going to be resolved soon. Given that we
said that bugs received after October 1 will be treated as last call,
the Group will automatically flag all the comments received after that
as Last Call. That's what we announced earlier in September but we
didn't really have the time to do the implementation part in bugzilla.

> Then there's the issue of resolving all of these Last Call comments in a 
> Bugzilla database. Not everyone commenting on HTML5 is going to be a 
> developer, comfortable with working in a Bugzilla database. In addition, 
> some changes and concerns are too complex to be effectively discussed in 
> a Bugzilla database, which was never intended for such purposes.

It's difficult for the editor and some of the participants to follow all
emails that are exchanged on the list. While I understand that it's more
complex for the commenters to use bugzilla, it helps a lot in order to
track comments. The Chairs did say in the past that they will help
anyone who was having troubles reporting a bug into the bugzilla. So, if
you send your comments to the appropriate comments, they'll help you in
putting them into the bugzilla.

> More importantly, those outside of the HTML WG are effectively cut off 
> from parts of the process by the fact that the HTML WG will not accept 
> change proposals from outside the group (in defiance of its own Design 
> Process procedure). Change proposals are part of the Decision Process in 
> the HTML WG, but aren't necessarily part of the W3C Last Call process. 
> So, which takes precedence? The W3C procedures? Or the HTML WG co-chair 
> procedures?

Nothing prevent you from sending a change proposal as part of submitting
a bug from what I can tell. The W3C procedures don't impose anything on
a Group when it comes down on how they handle the comment within the
Group. It only imposes a requirement of tracking the comments and
formally addressing the issues. Whether a Group chooses to engage with a
commenter or not while they're looking at an issue is also their own

The W3C Process always takes precedence. And the HTML WG co-chair
procedures cannot override the W3C Process, nor the Charter  of the
Working Group. The expectation is that the Chairs will apply the W3C
Process, the Charter of the Group, and their own procedures as
consistently as possible.

> The current procedure is marked as a Timeline to Last Call[1]. It states 
> any bug in the Bugzilla database after the October first deadline will 
> be treated as LC comment. However, there is nothing in this Timeline to 
> state that this is the _only_ way that a Last Call comment can be made.

Correct. The draft also points to a mailing list. We encourage folks to
use bugzilla as much as possible to ease the tracking and handling of
comments. So you can use the mailing list to send your comments but
there is no obligation on the Group to keep using the mailing list while
they discuss your issue. In this case, they chose to use bugzilla

> The W3C needs to ensure that the HTML WG actions are consistent with W3C 
> procedures. More importantly, it needs to ensure that the HTML WG 
> actions are consistent, period.

Suggestions are always welcome when it comes down to the HTML WG
decision policy. Keep in mind that we're still testing it after all. One
of the reasons we started to apply the decision policy prior to Last
Call was to ensure that it would fine-tuned and well understood by the
time we move to Last Call. All the extra steps and mistakes we're going
through at the moment will make the Last Call periods a lot easier.
That's the hope at least.


Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 15:46:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:27 UTC