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 21:48:50 +0000
To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F81870EFB2@TK5EX14MBXC134.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> I think you may have misinterpreted my question.

Sorry if my response was off base.

> 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.

In my experience as a W3C Chair I personally use the kind of model you are suggesting.  First I ask myself if the data being provided is really "new information" and then I try to evaluate whether that "new information" would have been important to the original discussion or decision that is being re-considered.  So while I may agree with your general approach to deciding whether a decision should be re-opened I have always taken on the responsibility for the evaluation of these criteria since this is what the W3C Process asks Chairs to do.

BTW in other WGs it has been my practice as Chair to have a lower bar for re-opening an issue earlier in the W3C Process.  But as the WG gets further and further thru the W3C Process in my view the "new information" needs to be more and more compelling before I would be willing to revisit a question.

/paulc

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 4:39 PM
To: www-archive@w3.org
Cc: Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby; Maciej Stachowiak
Subject: Re: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG

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 21:49:24 GMT

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