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

Re: Change Proposals, objections, and the Decision Policy

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:03:32 -0400
Message-ID: <4C16D164.1090404@intertwingly.net>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 06/14/2010 08:49 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> A lot of the discussion around Change Proposals and the Decision
> Process seems to revolve around the "strength of objections."  Would
> it make my proposal more likely to convince the chairs if I edited my
> proposal to more strongly object to the opposing viewpoint?
>
> Previously, I was under the impression that technical merit was the
> salient criterion, so I couched my proposal in terms of technical
> trade-offs.  I can certainly be more of an objectionist if that's what
> the chairs desire.

The full quote and context can be found here:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#managing-dissent

It isn't lengthy, so I have quoted the full text here:

"In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, 
a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair MAY 
record a decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least one 
Formal Objection) so that the group may make progress (for example, to 
produce a deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters cannot stop a 
group's work simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision. 
When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered the 
legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, 
the group SHOULD move on.

Groups SHOULD favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This 
is preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but 
that cause strong objections from a few people. As part of making a 
decision where there is dissent, the Chair is expected to be aware of 
which participants work for the same (or related) Member organizations 
and weigh their input accordingly."

> Adam

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 01:04:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC