RE: @headers issue resolved - allowing a td to be referenced by a header to be in the HTMl5 spec.

Replying to this thread, and bottom-quoting Maciej, so as not to misrepresent.

As previously stated - during the telecon, and based on previous email discussion, there appeared to be consensus.  I have an action item to review the threads since then, and re-evaluate that consensus.  I expect to find enough lack of consensus to have to raise this as a question for the group (via poll, most likely), though to be honest, I've been too slammed for the last couple of weeks to even read the detail in those responses.

As for enabling asynchronous participation - there was fair warning that the issue would be discussed (so opinions could be sent in), there had been previous discussion in email, and I was clear both at the time and after the call that such a decision was not permanent nor binding; that any new information could certainly cause a re-evaluation, and I meant that.  I believe that enables asynchronous participation quite well, and I have no intention of the need to enable asynchronous participation obviating any useful and valuable synchronous participation.  Binding decisions cannot be made without enabling asynchronous participation; I did not do that.  I do actually want us to move the spec forward.

I do not believe I did anything in violation of our charter (and I would quite HAPPY if the group as a whole would like to adhere quite a bit more strictly to the charter, as a matter of fact), nor do I believe that I was "bending the rules," and I believe my co-chair and staff contact agree.  We can escalate that to a discussion with the Group Lead if you wish.

For the record, by the way, I don't have any personal strong viewpoint on this issue anyway.

-Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:20 AM
> To: Chris Wilson
> Cc: James Graham; Steven Faulkner; HTML WG; www-archive
> Subject: Re: @headers issue resolved - allowing a td to be referenced
> by a header to be in the HTMl5 spec.
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> >
> > James Graham wrote:
> >> It seems to me that several aspects of this procedure have not been
> >> followed:
> >
> > Speaking for myself as chair, as I was chairing the call yesterday,
> > and although I think Mike and I are in sync on this I want to offer
> > him the opportunity to give a different take:
> >
> > The Charter says: "However, if a decision is necessary for timely
> > progress, but after due consideration of different opinions,
> > consensus is not achieved, the Chair should put a question (allowing
> > for remote, asynchronous participation using, for example, email and/
> > or web-based survey techniques) and record a decision and any
> > objections, and consider the matter resolved, at least until new
> > information becomes available."
> >
> > On this topic, there has been much asynchronous participation
> > already.  I explicitly listed this as a topic for discussion for the
> > telecon, to invite those who might not be able to participate to
> > offer their input or ask for the matter to handled in some other way
> > in order to incorporate their input.  (There were, BTW, no explicit
> > regrets for this telecon.)  I also elicited different points of view
> > at length during the issue discussion on the telecon.  There was, in
> > effect, no significant dissent represented on IRC or the telecon,
> > and I considered consensus to be achieved - thereby requiring no
> > further question to be put to the group.  I did explicitly mention
> > the last clause - if anyone has a significant objection to this
> > approach, backed with reasoning that addresses in some way the
> > examples offered in the issue exposition (see the issue on tracker
> > or the IRC log for references) or explaining why in their opinion
> > those examples should not be relevant, then we will, as per our
> > Charter, revisit the issue.  Barring new information being
> > available, I'd like us to make progress, and I don't see a
> > significant reason not to consider the current proposal as the right
> > resolution, and representing consensus of the group.  If you have
> > another solution that solves the problem (representing "multi-
> > dimensional" header semantics that are relatively common cases) and
> > could be considered better, I'm more than happy to revisit this
> issue.
>
> I wrote my previous reply before reading this, however, I would state
> that I strongly disagree with this bendinf of the process.
>
> > The chairs are NOT bound to put each and every issue to a vote or
> > poll, when we feel consensus (= "general agreement", not unanimity)
> > has been achieved.  And, of course, after putting such a question to
> > the group, it would still be Mike and my responsibility to declare a
> > decision anyway.
>
> Clearly since the issue has been (and continues to be) controversial
> in email, the declaration of consensus was premature. Since there is
> not consensus, I ask the Chairs to either leave the issue for further
> discussion or put the question to the Working Group. (I would prefer
> the former).
>
>
> I personally helped draft the "Decision Policy" section of the
> charter, and I can tell you that its intent was specifically to
> prevent decisions from being made in telecons, since not all
> participants are willing and able to attend them, and so important
> points of view are disenfranchised. There is a temptation to make
> power plays based on who is or isn't present. In fact, the very fact
> that there was no objection to the decision on the telecon and that
> there has been objection by email proves this to be the case in this
> instance.
>
> I hope such a violation of the charter (which, again, is specifically
> designed to prevent binding technical decisions from being made in
> telecons) does not happen again.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 23:08:41 UTC