W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: extending the DAV: HTTP header, was: Issues from Interop/Inte rim WG Meeting

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:49:47 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10783924A@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

Sorry about the typographical confusion.  The quotes around "report
decisions to the list" were not intended to indicate a quote from your
message, but rather my summary of what you appeared to be saying.  In
particular, the relevant lines were:

> significant dissent on the list, along with feasible alternative
> solutions to the problems encountered, would be required to overturn
> that.

So to restate my point, consensus in a working group meeting only
means that you have something to propose to the working group
(i.e. the mailing list).  To adopt a change requires consensus in the
working group (i.e. the mailing list), not merely the lack of
"significant dissent" (this is a quote :-), nor the availability of
"feasible alternative solutions" (also a quote).  In particular, a
change can be found "not good enough" (not a quote :-) even if there
are no alternatives.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:41 PM
To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
Subject: RE: extending the DAV: HTTP header, was: Issues from
Interop/Inte rim WG Meeting


I'm sorry Geoff, I tried to be careful in my wording exactly because of
these issues, of which I am in fact very sensitive.  Let clarify and fix
the misquote.

I said "I report this to the list" (that the WG had consensus).  I did
not say "report decisions to the list".  It is appropriate to convey WG
meeting consensus to the mailing list.  This was an official open WG
meeting and therefore taking consensus of the meeting attendees was an
appropriate thing to do.

I also specifically said in the paragraph you quote that the mailing
list could "overturn" this consensus.  The mailing list can do this with
any WG consensus, just as it can also confirm, or fail to overturn.  

Consensus was achieved at the WG meeting on various recommendations and
proposals to make to the list.  Nobody used the words "decisions".
Nobody said anything was final.

Mailing list participation and review is crucial to the IETF process.
However, if a WG is not allowed to determine consensus in person, at
official WG meetings, and report recommendations to the list, then the
WG loses an important tool for making progress.

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:21 AM
> To: 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: extending the DAV: HTTP header, was: Issues from
Interop/Inte
> rim WG Meeting
> 
> 
> WG meetings are not, I repeat, *NOT*, where these kinds
> of decisions are made.  These decisions are made by the working
> group as a whole as represented by consensus on the mailing list.
> 
> One does not "report decisions to the list", one makes suggestions
> to the list, and then determines whether or not there is consensus
> on the list.
> 
> This is especially true for a working group meeting that was not
> even held at an IETF meeting, and especially true in these times
> of restricted travel funds, where physical presence at a meeting
> can often be infeasible.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:40 PM
> To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: extending the DAV: HTTP header, was: Issues from
> Interop/Inte rim WG Meeting
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Consensus was quite clear at the WG meeting on both these issues.  I
> report this to the list to make it clear that significant dissent on
the
> list, along with feasible alternative solutions to the problems
> encountered, would be required to overturn that.
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 18:56:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT