W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2012

Fw: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:52:23 -0800
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <99fae583-1239-4762-9aa7-4d743db2c95d@blur>
this html-wg issue concerns whether an undated url reference to another specification is labeled as "work in progress" so that reviewers are alerted to the loose binding.

is that just a matter of taste with no substance?


-----Original message-----
From: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2012 16:14:57 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution

I note that a resolution has already been proposed there:

  https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13263#c1


  If the Chairs judge that all possible Change Proposals for an Issue would
  lead to non-substantive changes, as defined by the Process, then instead
  of asking for full Change Proposals, they may ask for simple rationale
  statements and then hold a preference poll.

  This would turn such decisions into a popularity contest, but that seems
  reasonable and appropriate for changes that are matters of taste.

I think the phrase "matters of taste" in that last sentence is the
operative word here. Another way to describe this class of commentsis,
"comments about editorial choices that rightly should be left to the
discretion of an editor".

And I think that have a major deficiency in the decision policy is that it
currently allows somebody to take a personal comment about a simple
matter of taste or matter of editorial discretion and have it treated in
the same way as issues of actual substance. It is an abuse of the time and
attention of the entire group and its chairs and the W3C team.

I don't think such comments about simple matters of taste or matters of
editorial discretion even merit a preference poll. They can be resolved by
the chairs simply recognizing them as such and issuing a decision on behalf
of the group which states that the comment is about a matter of taste that
rightly should be left to editorial discretion and so that requires no
attention from the group as a whole, and no further action from any editor.

Anybody who isn't satisfied with such as decision still always has the
option of raising a formal objection.

  --Mike

Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, 2012-01-25 15:13 +0000:

> > "Issues that have no impact on conformance requirements can consume undue time and energy"
> > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13263

> > Currently the Chairs do not have consensus on what, if any, change to make for this bug. Comments are welcome, including ones using this issue as an example.
>
> The Chairs are still looking for input on bug 13263 on the Decision Policy.  We invite replies to this thread or input directly on the bug.
>
> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 4:27 PM
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> >
> > On second reading, "not" implies instead of.  I believe that the topic in question is one that reasonable people can disagree on, and that such topics merit discussions on this mailing list.  If every who cares about this issue will participate in a discussion on this list, and they can come to consensus, there is no need for issues, Change Proposals or Surveys.
> >
> > What I did not mean to imply is that changes to the Decision Policy are off bounds.  Those that wish to pursue such are encourage to file bug reports against the Decision Policy itself.  Feel free to cite this bug as an example.
>
> There's already a bug proposing potential different treatment of "editorial" type bugs:
>
> "Issues that have no impact on conformance requirements can consume undue time and energy"
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13263

>
> Currently the Chairs do not have consensus on what, if any, change to make for this bug. Comments are welcome, including ones using this issue as an example.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+


Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 13:51:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:44 GMT