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

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

From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:39:10 -0800
To: www-archive@w3.org
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <m2hbbtru2p.fsf@il0301e-dhcp240.apple.com>
Hi Paul,

Thanks for the prompt reply! I think you may have misinterpreted my
question.

I asked:

>> What criteria will be used to determine the "newness" of information
>> when considering reopening issues in the HTML WG?

You replied:

> 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:

Yes, indeed it does. That's why I was asking the chairs, and not the
working group or some other parties, what criteria you intend to use.

>> 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.

I know the responsibility for reopening decisions rests with the chairs.
I was asking the chairs about the mechanism you intend to use, and
offering a suggested metric that you could take into account when making
such decisions.


Thanks,
Ted

-- 
Edward O'Connor
eoconnor@apple.com
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:40:13 GMT

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