- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:21:07 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8891 --- Comment #1 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2010-02-07 09:21:07 --- The chairs will discuss this proposed change. My own tentative opinion is that we should make the policy document reflect what we have been already doing, as suggested in bug 8894, rather than to change what we've been doing. This would mean that a call for additional proposals would remain an optional step, and would depend on whether we can achieve clear consensus without getting that far. If a change proposal does not draw any opposition, then we'd just call for consensus on the change proposal. If a mutually agreeable compromise change is made to the spec, then we'd call for consensus to close by amicable resolution. If the discussion shows continuing disagreement, then we'd ask anyone who continues to disagree to write it up formally, and give them a time limit. The reason to have time limits at all is not to pre-empt anyone from speaking their piece, but rather to keep issues from being dragged out indefinitely. The chairs have been very generous (within limits) about granting extensions. However, another consideration for the process is to prevent denial-of-service on the group. We don't want to create the possibility that someone may raise a lot of issues and not follow up. And I don't mean to imply malicious intent - often people find that they care less than they thought, or have less time than expected. Since we adopted the Decision Policy we have had Change Proposals submitted for 14 issues, while 8 have timed out in one way or another. And I believe all our issues were intended sincerely at the time they were raised. Anyway, that's my tentative thinking. Not a final statement, and not necessarily representative of consensus of the chairs. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 7 February 2010 09:21:09 UTC