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

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

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:16:41 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0910121016x2195b2bdvdc69c520bd40d215@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
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>
Hi Maciej,

Thank you for the explanation and clarification.

Best Regards,
Laura

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> 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 am 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

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 17:17:17 UTC

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