- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:27:07 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10524 --- Comment #15 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2010-09-13 18:27:07 --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #11) > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > > Hi Sam, > > > > > The only trend here is that Laura files a > > > bug, participates constructively in its resolution, and results are > > > being posted. > > > > Thanks to Maciej for calling the working group's attention [1] to the new > > Discussion Guidelines [2]. I hope group benefits from them. > > > > But I don't see how the Discussion Guidelines helps to directly solve this bug. > > The new Discussion Guidelines are ancillary to this bug. > > > > This bug is about clarifying procedure and recourse for non-working group > > members to follow when they are unsatisfied with a bug resolution. There will > > be more that one person wanting to know the answer to the following questions: > > > > * What is the proper procedure for non-members to follow if they are > > unsatisfied with a bug resolution? > > I said early in this thread that hard cases make for bad laws. The procedure > will depend on what reason is given for the person to remain a non-member. > > The reason why the Discussion Guidelines are not ancillary to this bug is very > simple: if the reason given turns out to be an unwillingness to agree to these > guidelines, then the answer is very simple: there is no procedure for such > individuals (if any) to follow as they simply are not welcome here. > > > * How does the procedure for non-members differ from members? > > What makes this hard is that we encourage discussion to occur on public-html, > and we don't allow non-members to post on public-html. We would need to > understand the reason why this split is necessary before we find a way to > enable this sub-optimal arrangement. Put another way, I am not interested in > pursuing a hypothetical discussion and create complicated procedures to handle > a case that may or may not ever occur. If somebody wishes to participate, we > encourage them to join. If they can not or will not, we want to know why. > After we know why, we will take it from there. > > > * Are non-members allowed to write change proposals? > > The simple answer is yes, but this is not a simple question. There will be > conditions that will be placed over and above the conditions placed on members. > What those conditions will be will depend on the reason why the person is > unwilling to become a member in the first place. > There's nothing in the Decision Process that demands a person must explain why they don't want to become a member. (Or is there, and I missed it?) There's also nothing in any of the documentation linked in this thread that mentions "extra conditions". What might these be? > > * Are non-members required to join the working group for their proposal to be > > considered? > > Again, the simple answer is no; and again the conditions which will be placed > on non-members will depend entirely on the reason why the person is unwilling > or unable to become a member. Again, not part of any documented rules or regs for the group, or within any defined process or procedure. -- 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, 13 September 2010 18:27:09 UTC