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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 07:23:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4A1BDF24.8@burningbird.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:58:22 +0200, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:
>   
>> From the consensus document that Sam linked, it would seem that not  
>> having consensus would not hold up publication of a document, but that  
>> the objections should be addressed, and at a minimum, noted in the  
>> document.
>>     
>
> Just to be clear. The document Sam linked was a very old version of the Process document. Even in that very old version of the document it is not clear that objections need to be noted in the document itself though, as can be read here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/activities.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
>
> Anyway, the current Process document is clear on this:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
>
>
>   

Thanks, I think I missed this one.
>> The document did not suggest that objections should be brushed  
>> aside as inconsequential because some members of this group have a  
>> problem dealing with disagreement.
>>     
>
> I agree that we should strive to reach agreement whenever possible.
>
>
>   

Agree. 

I notice the option for the chair to re-open the discussion if new 
information is presented. I'm assuming this would include taking a new 
vote on the document.

In light of the objections given in this longish discussion thread, and 
what seems to have been a lack of addressing such objections, properly, 
from the first vote, I believe that Sam Ruby and Chris Wilson should 
re-open this topic, formally--including taking a new vote on the 
document, and handling any new objections that arise using the proper 
procedure.

I don't think this would be an onerous burden on the working group, 
would it?

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:23:44 GMT

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