W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

review process [was: identify...]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:29:23 -0600
Message-ID: <38ABF7B3.D7BA40C7@w3.org>
To: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
CC: www-html@w3.org
Arjun Ray wrote:
[...]

> > As with anybody else, the WG's obligation to me is to
> >       -- convince me to withdraw
> >       -- accept my suggestion, or
> >       -- escalate the issue
> 
> I read this and paused.  I got up and took a walk.  By the time I sat
> down again, it was clear that you have no idea - absolutely none
> whatsoever - how utterly *outrageous* this is.

Why is it outrageous to say that the WG is obligated to seek consensus
among the community of reviewers, and escalate if they feel it's
time to move on without it? IETF WGs have had this obligation
for decades, and I haven't seen any objection to it. c.f

	"As
   much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be
   made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when
   even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to
   agree."
	-- section 6.5  Conflict Resolution and Appeals
	of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt

>  You may gauge the
> extent of the travesty by considering this: no extortionist could
> ever find a more succinct statement of his, uh, proposition.  But
> you're not an extortionist, you're just oblivious.  You actually
> *believe* that you just said something reasonable.  You find nothing
> wrong in holding *their* judgment hostage to *your* leave to remain
> unconvinced.

If everybody else here didn't know they have the same right, I'm
here to tell you, you do:

	1.3 W3C's consensus policy 

	Integral to the W3C process is the notion of consensus. The W3C
	process requires those who are considering an issue to address
	all participants' views and objections and strive to resolve them.
	Consensus is established when substantial agreement has been reached
	by the participants. Substantial agreement means more than a
	simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity. While unanimity is
	preferred, it is not practical to require that Working Groups, for
	example, reach unanimity on all issues. In some circumstances,
	consensus is achieved when the minority no longer wishes to
	articulate its objections. When disagreement is strong, the opinions
	of the minority are recorded in appropriate documents alongside
	those of the majority. 

	--
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/background.html#Consensus

-- 
Dan Connolly
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 08:30:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT