- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:04:48 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13263
Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-07-15 20:04:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 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.
Of course everyone could live with the proposed replacement. Everyone could
live with the current text too. That's precisely *why* the issue is
unimportant and shouldn't require cumbersome process -- the outcome makes
little difference to anyone in the end anyway.
The reason no one responds to these things is that we know that if we object,
we're going to be asked to write a Change Proposal, which is a nuisance even if
you make it short. You have to get the right format, have the chairs critique
it if you left out something or other, whatever. So we all sit there waiting
for someone else to write the Change Proposal because we don't care enough.
Then no one does, so the CfC passes.
The name "call for consensus" is misleading, because the boilerplate used in
the HTMLWG for CfCs does *not* actually represent an attempt to ascertain
consensus. It says
"""
At this time the WG Chairs would like to solicit alternate Change Proposals
(possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case anyone would like
to advocate the status quo or a different change than the specific one in the
existing Change Proposal.
If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by July 1st, 2011,
we will proceed to evaluate the change proposal that we have received to date
for ISSUE-150.
"""
That pretty clearly says "if you're not willing to write a CP, don't bother
responding". But then if no one can be bothered to write a CP, the chairs call
it "consensus". If you're going to use that term, you should make it explicit
in the CfC that people should object even if they don't intend to write change
proposals. Otherwise call it a "call for alternate change proposals".
> 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.
Yes, because writing bug comments is easier than writing even a simple CP.
--
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 20:04:50 UTC