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

[Bug 10524] Please clarify procedure and recourse for non-working group members when they are unsatisfied with a bug resolution

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:39:53 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OuLcn-0002KE-U7@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #3 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>  2010-09-11 08:39:53 ---
(In reply to comment #2)

> In the policy or boiler plate bug message it might be good to let non-working
> group members know that they MUST join the group to affect change if they can't
> get someone  who is a member to write a change proposal on their behalf. Many
> people outside of the group won't be aware of the fact that they have to join.

Maybe this isn't the case? Maybe non-members don't have to join?

One related post on the comment list [1] seems to indicate that non-members
writing change proposals isn't encouraged. But another post to the comment list
[2] seems to indicate that non-members writing change proposals is okay
according to the policy. 

It would be good clarify in the policy non-member procedure if it differs from
members. Many people may not want to join the group but will want to
pursue/escalate an issue.


[1] Philippe Le Hegaret, 25 Aug 2010: 

> It's one thing to file bugs against a specification and expressed
> whether or not you agree with the decision of the group. It's an other
> to contribute to the group to the point of writing change proposals.
> Shelley, I understand your reluctance to be part of the group but, if
> you're going to be involved with it, I think you should be part of it.
> We won't (and can't anyway) force you to read every single email on
> public-html and you might in fact only interact around your change
> proposals. But starting to write change proposals without being part of
> the group doesn't make sense to me"


[2] Shelley Powers, September 10, 2010:

>   I'm not sure if this is a new addition to the decision process, or it 
> was missed, but it was pointed out to me today that according to the 
> HTML WG Decision Process, people who aren't members of the HTML WG may 
> submit change proposals[1]:
> "Complete Change Proposals should be recorded somewhere in W3C space 
> (wiki, dev.w3.org, archived mailing list) and the Working Group should 
> be notified by email. If the author of the Change Proposal is not a 
> member of the Working Group, then he or she should agree to the W3C 
> Patent Policy and grant a non-exclusive copyright assignment as required 
> for invited experts."
> I am willing to agree to the patent policy and grant copyright, and will 
> so note at the bottom of all change proposals. I will use the text of 
> the existing Patent Policy and copyright grant, only modifying it to 
> remove references to Invited Expert.
> I will embed the text of the proposal, including the patent and 
> copyright notices, in an email to the HTML WG comments email list, and 
> see if I can prevail on an existing member of the HTML WG to send an 
> email to the HTML WG email list, notifying the group of the proposal.
> Based on requests from co-chairs, or comments from HTML WG members, and 
> members of the general public in the HTML WG comments email list, I will 
> make necessary modifications to the proposal, and resend.
> It may be simpler for me to be a member, but I will not agree to joining 
> in a probationary state, or to any restrictions not applicable to other 
> members of the HTML WG. Instead, I'm offering a compromise, as noted in 
> this email.
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.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 Saturday, 11 September 2010 08:39:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC