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 07:41:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4A1A83DC.8060702@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 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

There do appear to be substantive differences.  Will investigate.  Thanks!

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 11:41:58 GMT

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