Re: CfC: Adopt Proposed Decision Policy

Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are problems with this procedure, which will, most likely, arise
>>>> regarding the issue of named entities.
>>>>
>>>> On the one hand, you have the individual who wants a change in the
>>>> document; on the other, you have an editor willing to make the change.
>>>> But no where in this do you have consensus of the group.
>> I would be quite prepared to declare consensus on any document which has had
>> adequate review and no remaining open issues or bugs.
>>
>>> I think you may be drawing an unwarranted assumption about the issue of
>>> entities in XHTML. The reason we're discussing it on public-html is because
>>> Ian did not want to make the change without discussion.[1] You are right
>>> though that the policy allows an initial editor's decision to be made based
>>> on an incoming comment, if the editor agrees.
>>>
>>>> In fact, no where in this, do you anything preventing the editor from
>>>> making
>>>> changes, even if there isn't consensus of the group, and as we've come
>>>> to learn it's much more difficult to get an edit changed then to
>>>> prevent an edit in the first place.
>> Shelley, perhaps I'm jetlagged, but I simply don't understand this
>> statement.
> 
> Shelley, are you saying that this working group should have the option
> to turn the Commit Then Review (CTR) [2] process into a Review Then
> Commit (RTC) [2] process at some point in the decision policy [3]?
> 
> I ask the chairs, at this juncture, does this working group have that authority?

Speaking only for myself: I would only support going to a RTC process at 
the point where we felt that the volume of comments were expected to be 
low.  Everybody I talk to believes that we will receive a considerable 
volume of comments during last call.  If this turns out to be the case, 
I think it would be best to allow non-controversial changes to be made 
expeditiously, even if they are material (i.e., non-editorial) changes.

The current process focuses on enabling pretty much everybody to make 
bug reports and for members of the working group to identify any 
resolution of a bug report as an issue for the working group as a whole 
to address.

I remain quite prepared to declare consensus on any document which has 
had adequate review and no remaining open issues or bugs, independent of 
whether the review occurred before, during, or after the commit.

> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby

> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview
> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit
> [3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
>

Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 16:02:11 UTC