W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2011

new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG

From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:27:00 -0800
To: "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2zkplwaob.fsf@il0301e-dhcp240.apple.com>

What criteria will be used to determine the "newness" of information
when considering reopening issues in the HTML WG? Allowing the
elaboration of information that, in truncated form, was available to the
working group at the time the original decision was made doesn't strike
me as a high enough bar.

In many cases, when the working group's escalation and decision process
has been fully exercised and a decision rendered, the issue in question
was contentious and divisive. If it isn't clear to the working group
that substantive new information is available *that would have caused
some participants to see things differently when the issue was first
decided*, I think the presumption should be that such issues don't get

I'd like to see something like Sam's "three or more independent and
established participants" rule for reopening issues due to new
information. If we can't find three or more independent and established
participants who can say "I would have gone the other way on this issue,
had I known then what I know now," we shouldn't reopen the issue.

Thanks for your consideration,

Edward O'Connor
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:28:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:45 UTC