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

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10524





--- Comment #4 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  2010-09-11 11:16:34 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (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.

I agree this needs to be clarified.

My perspective is that what is stated in the Decision Policy is a few necessary
conditions, but meeting those alone are not sufficient.  There are many reasons
why a Change Proposal is not accepted, and IP considerations are but one of
them.

Regarding the email that you quoted, I am in an active, private discussion with
Shelley, and will not comment further until that is resolved.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ListGuidelines

-- 
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 11:16:36 UTC