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

Re: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 06:54:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4A1A78C8.1090403@intertwingly.net>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT