W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:55:13 -0800
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <9A9E14E0-554C-4603-8BC5-8D51081F1594@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:30 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> The W3C's HTML WG has the following decision policy:
>> - Issues are raised and discussed; the editor(s) of relevant  
>> documents make an initial judgment on the best resolution and spec  
>> text.
>> - The first stage of escalation, if the initial decision does not  
>> satisfy, is to re-raise the issue and have a second group discussion.
>> - The second stage of escalation, if rough consensus on the issue  
>> is not visible and there continue to be serious objections to the  
>> spec language, is to hold a formal group vote to overrule the editor.
>> - The third stage of escalation, if the editor(s) refuses to abide  
>> by a group vote, is for the Chairs to discuss the matter with them  
>> and if necessary appoint new editor(s) (preferably with input from  
>> the group).
> The W3C HTML WG has not been operating like any other W3C working  
> group ever.  I expect that to continue to be the case for the  
> foreseeable future.
> What I am about to say doesn't directly conflict with what Maciej is  
> saying above, but IMHO represents a significantly different  
> perspective.  It also doesn't exactly match how we are currently  
> working in that it includes a few places where I describe what I  
> would like to see this group evolve towards.  It may also differ  
> from the way that the working group has operated in the past.   
> Simply put: this work group has been and continues to be more than a  
> bit dysfunctional, and I believe I was named as co-chair as it was  
> felt that I could help address that.
> With those caveats in place, here goes:

I don't think your description is in conflict with what I stated. The  
one part I disagree with is that any raised issue that at least three  
people agree is an issue must be flagged in Working Drafts. I do think  
it is often a good idea to mark especially controversial issues, or  
especially pervasive and clearly unresolved issues, but I think doing  
this as a matter of course may create a lot of work. I would say  
instead that we should exercise reasonable judgment about when a flag  
in the draft is warranted.


P.S. I know you asked people not to state their agreement on the list.  
But since your email was a reply to me, but since your email was a  
reply to me and since I think it is helpful to the group to see people  
coming to agreement, I chose to make an exception.
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 21:55:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:42 UTC