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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:43:04 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001181643i387228a5g2626a0f7ec8910dd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
> This approach is originally Sam's idea, and I am pleased with the way it's been working out. I don't think Sam is saying we're going to change things. But he *is* saying that the counter-proposal period is not guaranteed, and if a Change Proposal is either a clear winner or a clear loser just from mailing list discussion, we may not bother formally calling for alternatives.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>

That's not a step in the Decision process. The decision process states
that if the change proposal has general acclaim, it will most likely
be passed by consensus. If the change proposal has little or no
support, regardless of how it is written, it probably won't even go to
the poll.

It's only if the poll is indeterminate can the chairs call for another
round of proposals. From the procedure:

"3. Discussion
The Change Proposal (or multiple Proposals) may be discussed and
revised for a reasonable period. Authors of Change Proposals are
strongly encouraged to seek consensus and revise their Change
Proposals to gain more support. Change Proposals that do not see wide
support are unlikely to succeed. Once an outcome is clear or no more
productive discussion is happening, the chairs proceed to the next
step.

4. Call for Consensus
If the chairs believe it is clear whether the existing spec or some
available Change Proposal enjoys consensus, they issue a Call for
Consensus to solicit objections. Based on the response, proceed to the
appropriate substep of step 5. If there is not enough clarity to make
such a Call in the first place, the chairs may proceed directly to
step 5.b without a Call for Consensus.

5.a. Consensus Found
If there are no objections, very few (and weak) objections, or
objections can be resolved, the chairs declare that the Call for
Consensus becomes a resolution. The Working Group affirms or overrules
the editor's decision depending on the outcome. The Basic Process then
proceeds from step 7a or step 7b as appropriate. ** This is an
endpoint for the escalation process. **

5.b. No Clear Consensus
If there are numerous and/or serious objections, or if it is unclear
to the chairs what the position of the working group is, the chairs
may use a poll to get a sense of the working group.

6. Poll or Vote
A WG decision may be entered based on an informative straw poll as one
piece of input, or based on a formal and binding vote. Or the chairs
can ask for a new round of proposals if the poll does not reveal a
strongly preferred position; in this case, return to step 3.
Otherwise, the Working Group affirms or overrules the editor's
decision depending on the outcome."


There is nothing in this that states, "We will put out a call for
counter-proposals when a change proposal is submitted". Not only that
but, "We will put out MULTIPLE calls for counter-proposals, telling
people the counter-proposal has to be finished in a month".

Speaking of chairs, Sam when you said "both" chairs, does this mean
Paul has quit?

Shelley

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:43:33 GMT

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