W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Who is the Intended Audience of the Markup Spec Proposal?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:42:59 -0800
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <3303A787-6E99-4090-84B8-047A36D53842@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>


On Jan 30, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

>
> Here are two such links, and the first contains a further link:
>
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/11/20/Half-Full#c1227317561
> http://realtech.burningbird.net/semweb/accessibility-and-microformats/#comment-471
>
> My thoughts on how to resolve the issue, the third being the one  
> that is most to the point on this discussion, and is the reason why  
> I intend to vote 'yes' if^h^hwhen we proceed to the poll mentioned  
> in my previous email:
>
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/11/20/Half-Full
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/12/31/Thanks-for-Volunteering
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/01/16/WHATWG-FAQ

Here's my understanding.

The WHATWG has the following decision policy:

- A benevolent dictator decides issues on the merits based on  
arguments presented.
- The first stage of escalation is to appeal to the editor to  
reconsider the matter, if the initial decision does not satisfy.
- The second stage of escalation, if the editor is believed to be  
making a major misjudgment, is to appeal to the oversight group, which  
has the authority to remove the editor if necessary. Presumably this  
group would attempt to mediate a resolution with the editor rather  
than take this step.
- The third stage of escalation, if the editor is believed not to be  
acting in good faith, is for the oversight group to remove the editor  
from his position and appoint a new one.

So far, no issue has gone beyond the first stage of escalation, in the  
context of WHATWG.

The W3C's HTML WG has the following decision policy:

- Issues are raised and discussed; the editor(s) of relevant documents  
make an initial judgment on the best resolution and spec text.
- The first stage of escalation, if the initial decision does not  
satisfy, is to re-raise the issue and have a second group discussion.
- The second stage of escalation, if rough consensus on the issue is  
not visible and there continue to be serious objections to the spec  
language, is to hold a formal group vote to overrule the editor.
- The third stage of escalation, if the editor(s) refuses to abide by  
a group vote, is for the Chairs to discuss the matter with them and if  
necessary appoint new editor(s) (preferably with input from the group).

Only a handful of issues have reached the second stage of escalation.  
One example I can think of is whether <canvas> should be removed. The  
group ended up voting not to remove it. I imagine we would not want to  
take a vote to overrule the editor very often.

This does mean, though, that the WHATWG and HTML WG decision processes  
are different, and if any issue did get taken to a high level of  
escalation, there might be divergence. Let's hope that doesn't happen.  
So far we've been able to resolve most issues, even very controversial  
ones, to a reasonable level of satisfaction.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 02:43:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT