- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 13:01:44 +0200
- To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 25 May 2009 12:54:00 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Non-unanimity is a potential outcome. But consensus does not mean > rolling over strong objections, even if expressed by <10% of the > participants. The W3C consensus policy is relatively straightforward: > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/background.html#Consensus > > Relative to the current working draft, strong objections we need to do > one of two things, quoting directly from the above: > > * address all participants' views and objections and strive to resolve > them. > > * opinions of the minority are recorded in appropriate documents > alongside those of the majority. I haven't checked for differences, but I think it would be good if we all used the latest version of the Process document: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 11:02:44 UTC