- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 05:16:16 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On May 25, 2009, at 4:41 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > 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! For what it's worth, the version I quoted from was the most recent (2005) version of the Process document. Since "consensus" has been so much a topic lately, it may help other members of the group to review the link Anne cited as well. I certainly wasn't up on the details until I reviewed that section. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 12:17:27 UTC