W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-commits@w3.org > July 2010

html5/decision-policy decision-policy-v2.html,1.9,1.10

From: Maciej Stachowiak via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:12:06 +0000
To: public-html-commits@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OdvBm-0000pQ-Rg@lionel-hutz.w3.org>
Update of /sources/public/html5/decision-policy
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv2341

Modified Files:
	decision-policy-v2.html 
Log Message:
Document the process for Alternate Proposals, linking to
decision-policy-v2.png in the process. Addresses the following bugs:

"No change or so-called zero edit proposals"
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8891

"Document process for counter-proposals and alternate proposals"
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8894

"Clarify that no-change counter-proposals need to document rationale for the existing text"
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9792



Index: decision-policy-v2.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -d -r1.9 -r1.10
--- decision-policy-v2.html	4 May 2010 17:57:44 -0000	1.9
+++ decision-policy-v2.html	28 Jul 2010 01:12:04 -0000	1.10
@@ -244,8 +244,8 @@
 Tracker</a>. Once issues are in the tracker, we will use a system of
 Change Proposals to come to a decision.</p>
 
-<p><img src="escalation-process.png" alt="Flowchart illustrating the process described below."><br>
-<small><a href="escalation-process.svg">(SVG version)</a></small></p>
+<p><img src="escalation-process-v2.png" alt="Flowchart illustrating the process described below."><br>
+<small><a href="escalation-process-v2.svg">(SVG version)</a></small></p>
 
 <dl>
 <dt>0. Amicable Resolution</dt>
@@ -316,13 +316,18 @@
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="escalation-step3">3. Discussion</dt>
-<dd><p>The Change Proposal (or multiple Proposals) may be discussed and
-revised for a reasonable period. Authors of Change Proposals are
+<dd><p>The Change Proposal (or multiple Proposals) may be discussed
+and revised for a reasonable period. Authors of Change Proposals are
 strongly encouraged to seek consensus and revise their Change
 Proposals to gain more support. Change Proposals that do not see wide
 support are unlikely to succeed. Once an outcome is clear or no more
 productive discussion is happening, the chairs proceed to the next
-step.</p>
+step. If consensus on a proposal is clear, the chairs may issue a Call
+for Consensus (<a href="#escalation-step-4a">step 4.a</a>). If there
+are obvious objections or other alternatives, the chairs may instead
+issue a Call for Alternate Proposals
+(<a href="#escalation-step-4b">step 4.b</a>).</p>
+
 <p>
 <b>Note:</b> Editors may make changes that impact an issue under
 discussion, but that the editor is expected to identify on the mailing
@@ -335,14 +340,40 @@
 </p>
 </dd>
 
-<dt>4. Call for Consensus</dt>
-<dd>If the chairs believe it is clear whether the existing spec or
+<dt id="escalation-sep-4.a">4.a. Call for Consensus</dt>
+<dd>If the chairs believe it is clear that the existing spec or
 some available Change Proposal enjoys consensus, they issue a Call for
 Consensus to solicit objections. Based on the response, proceed to the
 appropriate substep of step 5. If there is not enough clarity to make
 such a Call in the first place, the chairs may proceed directly to
 <a href="#escalation-step-5b">step 5.b</a> without a Call for Consensus.</dd>
 
+<dt id="escalation-sep-4.a">4.b. Call for Alternate Proposals</dt>
+<dd><p>When a Change Proposal has been submitted, but it's clear that
+some Working Group members would prefer a different change, or the
+status quo spec text, the Chairs issue a Call for Alternate
+Proposals. Requests for Alternate Proposals will go out to the HTML WG
+mailing list and possibly via other channels as well. Note: it's ok
+for multiple people to to produce independent proposals for
+the same issue.</p>
+
+<p>Alternate Change Proposals should satisfy the
+usual <a href="#change-proposal">Requirements for a Change
+Proposal</a>. An Alternate Change Proposal may call for no changes to
+the spec at all, arguing that the existing spec text is the best way
+to resolve the issue. In this case, the proposal should provide
+rationale for the spec text as it stands. However, in some cases, an
+issue may revolve primarily around a request to add something, such as
+a new feature, and other proposals justify this addition. In this
+situation, it may be that the only reasonable rationale may be to give
+reasons why that particular addition should not be made.</p>
+
+<p>If no one submits an Alternate Change Proposal within a month, or
+if upon submission consensus is clear, proceed
+to <a href="#escalation-step-4a">step 4.a</a>. Otherwise proceed
+to <a href="#escalation-step-5b">step 5.b.</a></p></dd>
+
+
 <dt>5.a. Consensus Found</dt>
 <dd>If there are no objections, very few (and weak) objections, or
 objections can be resolved, the chairs declare that the Call for
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 01:12:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 July 2010 01:12:14 GMT