W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:55:23 -0500
Message-ID: <q2m643cc0271004221155o89f8f12bm4ce64e5c198cd628@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> And evidently, you've also modified the Decision Policy in the meantime.
> It seems that the co-chairs no longer make decisions based on the
> strengths of the arguments, or the rationales given. From the Decision
> Policy, it would seem now that the decisions are based on popularity
> in polls, and votes.
> So, it doesn't matter what I say.
> Hmm.. That is not what I'm seeing in the current decision policy. It
> does instead seem like if there is no clear result of the poll, there
> is a risk of infinite loop where we return to discussions until there
> is a clear consensus.
> I think Shelley may have just been making a snarky remark (not sure about
> what, and please take it to www-archive if you want to discuss it), rather
> than citing an actual change. That or she was mistaken. The actual Decision
> Policy document has not changed.

Please stop casting my discussion in an emotional context. Your use of
"snarky" was totally inappropriate given the context of my email.
Maciej, you're too quick to do this with my emails.

> If we don't reach consensus on these issues through discussion, the likely
> outcome is a survey-based decision, like we did for ISSUE-76 rdfa/microdata.
> As always, the Chairs hope the Working Group can come to consensus without
> resorting to that step. So I'd particularly like to hear whether anyone has
> changed their views or has new information, now that we have both proposals
> and counter-proposals on this issue.

I thought I remembered that the co-chairs based decisions on the
strengths of the rationale given, the logic of the arguments in the
change proposals, NOT the popularity of the person making the change
proposal, or the proposal itself.

When I read the decision process again, it seemed to me that the
decision process is now based solely on popularity.

I know that my proposals aren't popular, heck I'm not popular. But I
also believe that I have submitted strong arguments, and can respond
to the counter-proposal with additional strong arguments. The point
is, if it does come down to a vote, based on popularity, it doesn't
matter how strong my arguments are.

One of the reasons for basing the decisions on rationale rather than
popularity is that if people were to pursue these items as Formal
Objections, the co-chair decision is based on which of the change
proposals is more likely to survive the formal objection. The
resolution of formal objections, either to the decision, or blocking
the move to Last Call, isn't based on popularity. At least, I would
hope not.

I don't know if my arguments are the best, but I do know that I did
the absolute best I could with them. I would hope others that
participate would do the same.

> Regards,
> Maciej

Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 18:55:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC