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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 05:16:16 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <62658A32-0EFC-40FA-A0F9-20695C40967C@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On May 25, 2009, at 4:41 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> 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!

For what it's worth, the version I quoted from was the most recent  
(2005) version of the Process document. Since "consensus" has been so  
much a topic lately, it may help other members of the group to review  
the link Anne cited as well. I certainly wasn't up on the details  
until I reviewed that section.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 12:17:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC