W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2011

[Bug 13263] Issues that have no impact on conformance requirements can consume undue time and energy

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:53:37 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QhdDN-00086s-Ly@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #2 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-07-15 07:53:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Proposed resolution: 
> If the Chairs judge that all possible Change Proposals for an Issue would lead
> to non-substantive changes, as defined by the Process, then instead of asking
> for full Change Proposals, they may ask for simple rationale statements and
> then hold a preference poll.
> This would turn such decisions into a popularity contest, but that seems
> reasonable and appropriate for changes that are matters of taste.

Based on the recent feedback on issues 150 and bug 11124[1], I do not support
changing the process to be more lightweight for text that is "minor".

In this case we have a concrete proposal where there is an assertion that some
specific text verges on being opaque to nearly everybody with the possible
exception of implementers.

The only defense that has ever been given for this is Ian's "I like it the way
it is", and now Ted's "I don't recall any other implementors stating a strong

Having a lightweight process leading to a preference poll in this context would
indeed amount to a popularity contest, which would both increase drama and be
inconsistent with selecting the proposal that draws the least objections.

Additionally, I will note that the current process already requires substantial
effort on the part of those that wish to advocate changes such as these. 
Looking at the current queue and looking forward, I don't see evidence of this
requiring "undue" time and energy. 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jul/0215.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 Friday, 15 July 2011 07:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:55 UTC