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

Re: Change Proposals and Counter-Proposals (was Re: Issues 89 through 97)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:24:31 -0500
Message-ID: <4B54DF9F.5060804@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> 
> Are you saying then, Maciej, that you disagree with the Decision Procedure?

No, I don't believe that Maciej disagrees with the Decision Procedure, 
nor do I believe that that conclusion can be drawn from the statements 
you cited (and I have snipped because I want to focus on something else).

Backing up: first principle is that everything in HTML5 should have a 
rationale.

For expediency, we are willing to reduce that to: everything that is not 
sincerely disputed needs to have a rationale.

The way the process is supposed to work is that bugs are closed with 
adequate rationales.  Shelley has observed a number of cases where the 
rationales that were supposed to be provided were not adequate (and, no, 
I don't believe that any response that amounts to "go dig in the email 
archives" is an adequate response).

So, the first process failure is that we allowed such "rationales" to 
stand, and to allow issues to be opened without a suitable rationale. 
Going forward, we need to be more vigilant about that; but I don't 
suggest that we retroactively address the issues that have already been 
opened.

So, where do we stand on issues 89-97?

Shelley is correct that nothing in the process *requires* that people be 
allowed additional time to prepare counter-proposals.  What does that 
mean operationally?  What it means to me is that for these issues if 
nobody in the entire Working Group cares to defend the disputed features 
in the time allotted (and by that, I do mean with something more than a 
hand wave at the archives) then the chairs are not obligated to provide 
more time for counter-proposals.  A (typically one week) Call for 
Consensus followed by a decision is all the process requires.

On the other hand, the chairs may grant (note: to all parties) an 
extension if it is felt that people are working on a proposal and were 
unable to get it done in the time alloted.  From my perspective, "I 
couldn't be bothered to write up a rationale for what is in the spec 
until I saw the alternative being proposed" is generally not sufficient 
cause for granting an extension.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 22:25:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:59 GMT