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

Re: Infinite loop? (was HTML Working Group Decision Policy - for discussion)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:50:52 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-id: <67D98E98-EB1D-4185-BBA2-3B073535E4BE@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Maciej,
>
> I've been reading the HTML Working Group Decision Policy process
> document [1] as you suggested.
>
> Unless I an reading this wrong, it seems that an infinite loop is
> possible if or when 7.b [1] occurs and a HTML Working Group decision
> overrules an Editor's response.
>
> Is it possible for an issue tagged "WG Decision" to circle around
> infinitely with multiple RE-escalations/working group
> decisions/overrules if the editor does not agree with or understand
> the working group decision?

We expect editors to implement a Working Group decision whether or not  
they agree. We expect that Change Proposals will be sufficiently  
detailed that there is no way to fail to understand it. That is why we  
require edit instructions to leave no room for ambiguity. Please keep  
this in mind when writing Change Proposals.

> What happens if a decided issue is tagged as "WG Decision"; is
> reopened in Bugzilla as in step 10 [2]; and then the editor does not
> implement the working group decision?

If we can't count on an editor to act in good faith to implement  
Working Group decisions, we will have to revisit the process. I'm not  
expecting that to happen. If it does, we'll cross that bridge when we  
come to it. It will be the responsibility of the Chairs to figure out  
what to do in that case, such as finding someone else to do the edits.  
Again, a Change Proposal should be detailed enough that anyone could  
apply it to the document.

If the Chairs determine that a Change Proposal has not been  
implemented in good faith, then we are out of bounds of the process,  
and the Chairs will determine the proper course of action.

(Note: if the WG Decision was implemented properly, but someone still  
objects and cannot live with that outcome, then their next step would  
be to raise a Formal Objection.)

> Will having no ending step that directly implements the working
> group's decision be problematic?

It will be problematic if it ever occurs. From my conversations with  
Ian and Manu (our current editors of active normative drafts), I  
believe each of them would follow a formal Working Group decision, so  
I do not expect this to come up.

Our Working Group Charter is absolutely clear on the fact that the  
Working Group has final decision-making authority: <http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#decisions 
 >.  I expect every Working Group Member to abide by our Charter,  
since accepting it was a condition of joining the Working Group.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 16:51:27 UTC

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