- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 06:54:00 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2009 03:15:36 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> > wrote: >> At the present time, we do not have consensus on "parking" >> (whatever that might mean), we do not have consensus on publishing >> without a disclaimer (nor do we even have a draft disclaimer to >> consider), and we do not have consensus on publishing with a >> disclaimer. > > For what it's worth, our charter does allow for non-consensus > decisions to be made. It's not ideal, but if like last time there's > still >90% support, publishing a Working Draft would be fine I think. > I very much doubt we'll ever get unanimous support for doing anything > with a group of this size. Non-unanimity is a potential outcome. But consensus does not mean rolling over strong objections, even if expressed by <10% of the participants. The W3C consensus policy is relatively straightforward: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/background.html#Consensus Relative to the current working draft, strong objections we need to do one of two things, quoting directly from the above: * address all participants' views and objections and strive to resolve them. * opinions of the minority are recorded in appropriate documents alongside those of the majority. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 10:54:41 UTC