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: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:27:07 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OvDkB-0008Jy-RW@jessica.w3.org>

--- 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

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