W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2010

[Bug 9898] The Decision Policy (as applied) is ineffective at getting closure on ISSUEs

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:12:33 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OO8Wn-0005Ti-8i@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #11 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-06-14 12:12:31 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I think we need to be more clear about the finality of Working Group Decisions,
> > and encourage participant only if at least one of the following holds:
> > 
> > (a) They have new information which was not available at the time of the
> > decision.
> That seems like a valid reason to reopen a Decision.
> > (b) They would like to raise a Formal Objection to the decision.
> The Process document says: "When the Chair believes that the Group has duly
> considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and
> reasonable, the group SHOULD move on."
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#managing-dissent
> After a Decision, the Working Group Decision Policy has already provided due
> consideration. If someone merely upgrades into an FO a previous expression of
> disagreement that the chairs have already considered, I think the FO should
> just be recorded and the group should move on. Otherwise, the procedure would
> be vulnerable to DoS by FO.

The HTML WG decision process does not trump W3C procedures [1].

> > In particular, the participants who made dozens of posts about a decision
> > without providing new information should have been advised to proceed otherwise
> > or take discussion elsewhere.
> Indeed.
> > That being said: while there has been a burst of discussion about the last few
> > issues to be resolved, there have been at least 36 total issues have been
> > resolved since the decision policy has been adopted. For most of these resolved
> > issues, there are no ongoing permathreads and the results of the process are
> > generally accepted. So I am not sure it is correct to generalize from the last
> > three issues resolved to the process in general.
> Fair point.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews

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 Monday, 14 June 2010 12:12:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:18 UTC