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 17:46:07 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QhmSl-0005gH-NG@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #4 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-07-15 17:46:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > 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.
> In general I don't like preference polls, but it's precisely cases like
> ISSUE-150 where they would be most useful to *reduce* drama. Anne was
> right when he said "'Amicable Resolution' seems to more likely indicate
> 'Lack of Participation' than a resolution everyone can live with."
> I can confidently say that I would not have replied as I did to the
> chairs' decision on ISSUE-150 had that decision taken the form "80% of
> poll respondents prefer this CP to what's currently in the spec" and not
> "no one could be bothered to reply to the CfC, so please make this
> change."

My perception of the outcome on issue 150: an objection was raised on the text
in the spec and not a single person stepped forward saying that they could not
live with the proposed replacement.  And this was not completely due to lack of
participation: the comments on the bug itself shows a number of implementers
having reviewed the text.

Having a preference poll on this particular matter would have opened up the
question of the relative priority of constituencies[1], and that would have
resulted in increased drama.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies

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 17:46:14 UTC

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