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

Re: CfC: Adopt Proposed Decision Policy

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:58:54 -0800
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <B1D6F74B-EAD5-4693-9117-4F1EE1B47A93@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Nov 1, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

>> One thing I'd like to clarify: anyone can escalate a bug to a  
>> tracker issue once there is an editor's response, it doesn't have  
>> to be the originator. So if someone makes a spec comment that leads  
>> to a change, and a third party doesn't like that change, they can  
>> escalate to the tracker.
>> What the process does not provide for is a way to escalate to the  
>> tracker before the editor of the relevant draft has weighed in. I'm  
>> hesitant to change that at this time, for a few reasons:
> It just occured to me that *theoretically* this places the editor in  
> a position of creating a denial of service attack -- simply by not  
> responding.  Note: I said theoretically; the reason this never  
> occurred to me before as I don't expect this ever to happen in this  
> working group.
> My preference for how to handle purely theoretical issues is to  
> address them if and when they actually occur by adjusting the  
> process at that time.

Indeed, if that problem ever comes up, we will need to solve it. In  
our experience so far, though, bugzilla issues have been processed in  
a timely fashion, if not always to the satisfaction of the commenter  
or the Working Group. That is why the decision policy focuses on a  
paper trail and clear escalation path for those who are dissatisfied  
with the first pass results, and not on dealing with a lack of response.

Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 09:59:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:02 UTC