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 15:42:27 -0800
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <FAA8FFC7-6D89-4E29-8070-9873E4D94529@apple.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>

I explained what I meant in my reply to Sam. I think it roughly matches with your understanding. My suggestion: let's table this process discussion for now, or take it to www-archive.

 - Maciej

On Jan 21, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Yes, the next step is 6.  This says we make a Working Group decision,
> following the Escalation Procedure.  One option there is
> 
> "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 . .
> . the issue will be closed by Call for Consensus."
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation
> 
> My understanding of Maciej was that he was suggesting that Ian invoke
> option 0 here and make a spec change that would satisfy everyone, thus
> allowing us to proceed to step 4 "Call for Consensus" and then
> (hopefully) step 5.a of the Escalation Process, "Consensus Found".
> Whether Ian makes this change is entirely up to him at this point.  If
> he does not make any change, or makes a change that's unacceptable to
> someone, we will likely have to proceed to step 5.b of the Escalation
> Process, "No Clear Consensus", and have a straw poll as for microdata.
> I believe Maciej would like to avoid this if we can use step 5.a
> instead.
> 
> To further clarify what I meant, I was responding to Lachlan's inquiry
> as to whether Maciej was "ruling out" certain spec changes.  My
> understanding is that the chairs cannot at this stage require or rule
> out any action by the editor on this issue, because we're still in the
> middle of the Escalation Process (step 3, Discussion) and the Working
> Group has not formally reached a decision.  Until such time as the
> chairs record a Working Group decision on this issue, any spec changes
> are entirely up to the editor's discretion.
> 
> Please correct me if any of this is wrong.
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 23:43:04 UTC

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