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

Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:40:54 -0800
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <B8DFEEB5-869B-4E99-8A57-36761819E4A4@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
>>>> Just to be clear, does this mean you're ruling out the other alternative of
>>>> using <summary>, as mentioned in the change proposal, or is the choice
>>>> between dlabel, dsummary and summary being left entirely to the editor's
>>>> discretion?
>>> My understanding is that at this point, no Change Proposal has been
>>> approved, so the issue is entirely up to the editor's discretion --
>>> i.e., Maciej's suggestion is really a suggestion, not an official
>>> request.  If Ian so chose, he could use summary, or even keep the
>>> current dt/dd solution.  Then anyone who disagreed would have to
>>> follow the decision procedure further.  So we'll have to wait to see
>>> what Ian does, and the chairs can then post a Call for Consensus to
>>> see if his decision makes everyone happy without need for further
>>> procedure.
> 
> The Decision process has a pretty picture of this:
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/basic-process.png
> 
> We've been through steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and are now at 5.d.  Aryeh, my reading of that diagram does not match your understanding.  I see the next step as being 6.  Do you read it differently?

What I'm actually trying to do is exercise Step 0 of the Escalation Process:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation

"0. Amicable Resolution
At any stage of the process, the issue can be settled amicably, If spec changes are made that satisfy the person who raised the issue, or the person who raised it otherwise wishes to withdraw, and no one objects, the issue will be closed by Call for Consensus. Generally in this case no technical decision is entered, unless that seems important in particular cases. The Basic Process then proceeds from step 7a ** This is an endpoint for the escalation process. **"

Thus, if Ian makes a change to the spec that satisfies everybody, then I'd like to close the issue by amicable resolution instead of going to a formal Working Group Decision.

My suggestion proposed spec changes that it appears would satisfy everyone - including the person who raised the issue. That would include either <dlabel> or <dsummary>, but not <summary>, since that draws at least some objections.

If Ian is for whatever reason not willing to make a change that satisfies everyone (and at this point, I'd be really surprised if that was the case), then we can go to a formal WG Decision, in which case it is likely to be much more specific.

Frankly, I would be really pleased if we could resolve more issues via amicable resolution, because it's a lot less hassle for the Chairs. :-)

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 23:41:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC