- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 07:41:16 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > 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 There do appear to be substantive differences. Will investigate. Thanks! - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 11:41:58 UTC