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

Re: HTML Working Group Decision Policy - for discussion

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:51:54 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <3E21372B-C8C4-42FF-8F6C-1C45EB6C6215@apple.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

I made a few updates to the decision policy document based on  
outstanding comments:

On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:26 PM, L. David Baron wrote:

> This seems like a good opportunity for a denial-of-service attack.
> If somebody wants to ensure that an issue isn't escalated later,
> they can escalate it themselves and then fail to produce the change
> proposal.
>
> "Closed Without Prejudice" ought not to prevent an issue from being
> re-escalated.  (That seems to me the normal meaning of "without
> prejudice".)
>
> However, preventing denial-of-service attacks in the other direction
> (repeated raising of the same issues) would be good; this rule just
> doesn't feel like the right way to do it.

I changed the document to say that an issue that's closed without  
prejudice can only be re-raised with approval of the chairs. This  
should allow us to correct for bad faith behavior in both directions.

On Oct 8, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 05:31 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> Sounds good to me. An other related external feedback that I've got
>>> regarding time limits is the duration between the responses sent
>>> back to
>>> commenters and the transition request out of LC. It might be good to
>>> indicate that we'll leave two weeks in between as well (unless we  
>>> get
>>> positive responses from all those commenters).
>>
>> How about minimum of two weeks from the time we get every bug into a
>> final state? That would mean at least two weeks for commenters to see
>> their replies.
>
> ok

Done.


On Oct 8, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 02:20 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Copyright disclaimer/assignment might be implicit for
>> HTML WG members (though I can't find this spelled out anywhere, so I
>> don't really know), but from non-members we'd likely need an explicit
>> statement of some kind.
>
> I suggest adding wording in your decision policy stating something  
> like
> that "By submitting the proposal to the HTML Working Group, you're
> hereby agreeing to section 2.2:
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2007/06-invited-expert.html#L118
> or whatever license is used to publish the HTML 5 specification.
> "

I added similar wording. Also something about accepting the Patent  
Policy.
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 00:58:59 UTC

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