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

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

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:15:15 +0000
To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
CC: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F81870EA3A@TK5EX14MBXC134.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> What criteria will be used to determine the "newness" of information when considering reopening issues in the HTML WG?



The W3C Process document [1] makes it very clear that it is up to the WG Chairs to evaluate whether a closed/resolved issue needs to be re-opened and therefore to determine the "newness" of the information:
3.3.4 Reopening a Decision When Presented With New Information
The Chair MAY reopen a decision when presented with new information, including:
*         additional technical information,
*         comments by email from participants who were unable to attend a scheduled meeting,
*         comments by email from meeting attendees who chose not to speak out during a meeting (e.g., so they could confer later with colleagues or for cultural reasons).
The Chair SHOULD record that a decision has been reopened, and MUST do so upon request from a group participant.

> 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.



This is an interesting metric but it simply is not how the W3C Process works.  The responsibility for "reopening a Decision" is allocated to the WG Chairs by the W3C Process.



If a WG member disagrees with a Chairs decision then they can appeal the decision to the Director thru the W3C Team contacts [2].



Please let me know if you have further questions.



/paulc



[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen

[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGAppeals



Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329





-----Original Message-----
From: Edward O'Connor [mailto:eoconnor@apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 1:27 PM
To: Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby; Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Subject: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG



Hi,



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 reopened.



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,

Ted



--

Edward O'Connor

eoconnor@apple.com<mailto:eoconnor@apple.com>
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 20:15:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:34 GMT