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

[Bug 12117] Coordination

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 00:44:39 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QQqb1-0007O3-Or@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12117

--- Comment #3 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2011-05-30 00:44:38 UTC ---
My proposal for this bug would be to maintain our usual commit-then-review
approach. Anyone would be able to ask for an immediate revert of a change
introducing a willful violation if doing so reduces consensus. Or they could
escalate the bug to an issue.

Would it be reasonable to mention this when describing the revert policy?

If no one actually objects, then I don't think we should add hoops to jump
through. In particular, in a recent case where a willful violation was added,
and the Chair of the relevant WG objected in strong terms, the Chairs advised
him to post his comments on the public-html list and to take advantage of
existing procedures. This was sufficient to resolve the issue. Although the
person was upset for a while, he is presently still a member of the HTML WG and
continues to participate.

Furthermore, the WG has many times fully accepted willful violations in the
spec. At times when willful violations came up in the decision-making process,
the WG rejected the option of removing them.  Thus, I don't see an indication
that the WG itself wants to set a higher bar for these than the usual
commit-then-review policy.

Therefore, I think our action here should be limited to:

(a) Highlighting the revert policy and escalation policy remedies for problems
of this type.
(b) Strongly recommending that Editors and/or members of the WG pro-actively
notify other WGs of conflicts of this type.

-- 
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, 30 May 2011 00:44:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:10 UTC