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 16:15:01 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OOCJR-0003O8-Do@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #16 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-06-14 16:15:00 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > 
> > Over-relying on tone or word use doesn't encompass acts that, when taken
> > separately are innocuous, but when combined are based more on a response
> > against an individual rather than an idea. People can be polite but still act
> > counter to what's best for the HTML5 spec, and for all web communities.
> > Politeness in word is nothing if its not matched by openness in action. 
> > 
> > I would rather those who wanted to universally keep elements had argued each,
> > individually. I believed then, and continue to believe now, that the arguments
> > presented against my change proposals were weak, and based on politics rather
> > than technology. In fact, there were few technical objections and many
> > political -- based on emails and philosophical assertions rather than anything
> > quantifiable. 
> > 
> > However, where the co-chairs failed, and badly, is by tolerating disrespect for
> > the change proposal process by allowing a grouped response--even though the
> > change proposals were about individual items. 
> The Chairs initially asked you to submit change proposals for your issues
> staggered, instead of all at once. You insisted on submitting them all at once.
> Therefore, we took steps to prevent this from overburdening the group. The
> resulting Change Proposal did in fact individually address all six issues.

Your request was inappropriate, because my change proposals were based on the
fact that the editor didn't respond for months on the bugs, and then responded
all at once. 

I was not the instigator in the timing of these issues. As it was, the
artificial grouping impacted on the discussion of the various points --
something that was obvious when you look at the varying responses to the items
in the surveys. 

The co-chairs failed their first obligation: ensuring the editor responded in a
timely and complete manner. It is his actions that triggered the grouping, not

> In any case, you have made this point before. I don't think repeating it at
> every opportunity is helpful.

It is still a pertinent point and one that demonstrates the failure of the
co-chairs to apply the Decision process in a equitable, and consistent manner. 

> > It is the co-chair response and behavior that actually opens this item up for
> > formal objection, because the chairs did not follow their own established
> > change proposal process. 
> If you'd like to raise a Formal Objection against any of the decisions, go
> ahead. I don't think this bug is the appropriate place to comment on your
> possible intent to do so.

It is actually the best place to bring this up. Henri is stating that the
discussion that followed the recent Figure/Aside decision demonstrates that the
decision process fails because it does not stop the discussion. 

I responded with two clarifications:

The first was that much of the discussion had to do with the fact that since
aside and figure were staying in the HTML5 spec, there were issues with both,
including the fact that they're inaccessible, as currently worded in the
document. This was an entirely appropriate, in fact essential, discussion to

The second clarification I made is that Henri's perceived failure of the
process isn't to do with the Decision process, but the co-chairs application of
the Decision process. The co-chairs did not reference the objections in either
the change proposals, or the singular counter-proposal. I further believe that
the decisions were that much incomplete, because the co-chairs did not apply
the Decision process in an equitable and consistent manner. 

It is, indeed, appropriate to this bug discussion. To me, all combined, I don't
think we're finding a failure in the decision process. I think the failure was
in the co-chairs application of the decision process. 

You may disagree with my assertion, but I don't see how you can disagree with
it somehow being outside the scope of this bug.

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 16:15:03 UTC

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