Re: Moving forward? (issue tracking, spec review, shaping email discussions)

Laura Carlson wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Dan Connolly <> wrote:
>> One idea for a plan is to start review
> As mentioned on May 21, it may also be beneficial to come to consensus
> on the Proposed HTML Design Principles [1]. That message said,
> "I disagree with you on some incentives and qualifying evidence.
> Perhaps incentives as well as types of qualifying evidence should be
> defined in the HTML 5 Design Principles.
> I propose that the working group discuss the HTML 5 Design Principles
> as one of the next items it tackles and reaches consensus on them. 

Indeed.  In fact, I believe that agreement (and a formal
mechanism for registering dissent) is vital if this project
is ever to succeed.  On that basis, I go further than
Laura and suggest that the HTML 5 Design Principles
be not just "one of" the next items at which we look,
but rather /the/ next item.  The outcome of this stage
should be a set of design principles on which we all
agree, and which are binding on new members (that is,
it should not be possible for these principles to have
to be re-visited every time the group gains a new member).

But since I foresee that such agreement may be hard --
probably impossible -- to achieve, I also believe that
we need a formal mechanism whereby a member can register
formal dissent with one or more of the agreed principles,
and that an escalation procedure should be put in place
whereby the W3C itself reviews any areas of dissent and
affords them due weight before deciding to adopt, reject,
or refer for reconsideration, the recommendations
of the group.

Philip Taylor

Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 13:31:52 UTC