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 07:56:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4A1BE6F8.5000407@burningbird.net>
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.

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:57:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:45 UTC