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

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

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:36:31 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa1001181736g21554915hb554b76911254e4c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On 1/18/10, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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".

Shelley is absolutely right that the policy does not mention or define
counter proposals.

>From all I have gathered the concept seems to have been put into
affect as an extension to the decision policy after the call for
consensus.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 01:37:04 GMT

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