- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 07:56:24 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > Shelley Powers wrote: >> >> 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? > > A prior version of this document was approved by this working group as > a Working Draft. Citing the /2005/ W3C Technical Report Development > Process[1]: > > Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working > Group MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if it is > unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements. > > The document is in the process of being updated. I suggest we wait > until that update is complete before assessing how to proceed. > According to the document that Anne linked, there is procedure to follow when a member of this working group questions a past decision. However, it can't hurt to wait on an updated document, and then assess consensus at that time. Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:57:17 UTC