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

Re: review process [was: identify...]

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:27:22 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002172246521.1475-100000@mail.q2.net>


On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 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?

I was right: you don't get it.  A WG is organized with a job to do;
its members are chosen, I *hope*, for the value of their *judgment*.  
They aren't there to warm some chairs and rubberstamp and/or appease
the views of luminaries while their companies pay the W3C's rent.  
Yes, in the normal course of things, disputes can happen and do.  
But... here's one view (especially the last paragraph):

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1997May/0115.html

*You* - as appellant - can escalate.  Escalation is *not* a WG's
obligation; that's why it's a WG to begin with, ferchrissake.

> 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

I'm still right: you don't get it.  Please quote the section in that
document which states that it is a *WG's obligation* to escalate.  You
won't find it.  For the very good reason that you don't get and by now
I despair that you'll ever get.  From RFC 2026:

  "A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall
   always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),
   [...]
   If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the
   parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Area
   Director(s) [...]"

The key words are "any" and "may".

But this is just dilatory anyway (your diversion was successful, at
least temporarily.)  Comparisons of the IETF and the W3C are bogus.  
Attempts to paint the W3C as equal to the IETF in *moral authority*
are illegitimate.

> 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 

This is getting fairly ridiculous.  I thank you for your articulation
of your understanding of this passage, but I can say with confidence
that such an interpretation can't but bring productive work to a
standstill - a good faith attempt to be open is not an invitation to
filibuster.

>    Substantial agreement means more than a simple majority, but not
>    necessarily unanimity. [...]
>    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. 

So, record your objection(s) in an "appropriate document". 


Arjun
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 23:03:20 GMT

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