[Bug 8891] No change or so-called zero edit proposals

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8891





--- Comment #2 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-02-07 13:51:20 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> 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.
> 

I disagree.

First, many of the issues you mention, in fact all of them if I remember
correctly, were ones created before the new procedure was in place. 

I'm also not saying that people have to defend against a change proposal, until
someone actually volunteers to do one. But once a person volunteers to do a
change proposal, and the clock starts, it needs to start for _everyone_. 

In the HTML WG email list, the reason people have stated that they don't want
to do the zero-edit or counter proposals ahead of time, is because they to see
if it's worth their effort [1]. They seem to consider that their time so much
more valuable [2]. That this behavior is condoned by the co-chairs leaves me
breathless with astonishment.

The editor can quickly, even sloppily add items to the proposal, just by
editing the document. It is to the advantage of everyone that the components
under debate are given a well considered defense, because such defenses have
proven, over time, to actually help improve the item, at a minimum; perhaps
even come up with a better replacement, or result in its removal. 

Look at the discussion about the hidden attribute, and the confusion related to
it. These change proposals, and the defenses against them, actually result in a
better document--at a minimum, they help clarify misunderstandings.
Additionally, the defense does go on record, for those times in the future when
someone else will inevitably question why the component is worded the way it
is, behaves the way it does, or even exists. 

The only denial of service I have seen practiced in this group is when I've had
several bugs wait 2+ months, just for the editor to flip a button and copy and
paste a reason why he won't fix the item. Everyone else who is participating is
doing so rigorously, and with genuine intent. Look at how much work the
accessibility folks have had to do, just for the summary attribute? The amount
of work is absurd, and this group should be embarrassed at supporting one
person, who has no background in the accessibility, over so many who do.

You insult the team members who are advocating change, or clarification, when
there is no evidence, NONE, that any of us are participating in the childish
behavior you seem to be attributing to us. If this behavior arises, then you
can institute action -- but I would suggest that you wait until you actually
have evidence of such. 

If the folks aren't willing to get off their lazy you-know-whats, and put
together some words in defense of something they supposedly they can't live
without, then whatever they have to say probably won't be worth hearing anyway. 

So no, I will not support this, I will vigorously protest it, and if it
continues, against the policy you all wrote, and we all agreed to, I will
formally object. If people really support something, they can write a note in
defense of it. They shouldn't have to wait to see what I, or other people say.
They should know NOW why the want the status quo. If they do want to directly
respond to the person, there is a period of time after the proposals are
submitted, when everyone can update their change proposals to reflect what the
other people have written, and the discussion around the same. 

If the purpose of all of this is to come to amicable resolution as much as
possible, then this process should be effective. At a minimum, you should be
testing whether your current recorded and agreed on procedure does work, as it
is written, by asking for counter-proposals NOW for all of the items I'm
writing a change proposal for. I can guarantee, absolutely guarantee, it won't
be a waste of anyone's time.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0897.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0880.html


-- 
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 13:51:22 UTC