- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:30:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13263 --- Comment #9 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-07-15 20:30:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > > 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. "no one" is clearly an overstatement. We've processed plenty of counter proposals within this working group. The definition of what should go in a change proposal is pretty straightforward: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal In the case of a zero edit change proposal, the key section is rationale. > 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 The W3C definition of consensus varies from common English usage of the term: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Consensus I encourage you to also read the definition of Formal Objections: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews It is entirely consistent that the chairs of this working group will not give serious consideration to objections to replacing text unless those objections are accompanied by rationale. -- 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 20:30:43 UTC