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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 13:01:44 +0200
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uuhfk6ym64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 25 May 2009 12:54:00 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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.

I haven't checked for differences, but I think it would be good if we all used the latest version of the Process document:

  http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 11:02:44 GMT

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