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

Re: the MathML comments

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:06:13 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0911071606o7e0d87e6x3d7163843e18c0cd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

On 11/7/09, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> can we agree on a simple factual
> statement that we accompany such responses going forward, such as:
> "These comments were collected and reviewed by the working group, but
> were not formally assessed for consensus."

Yes, that would be a good addition for future comments where consensus
has not been accessed. If the chairs stipulated the appropriate
disclaimer to include and detailed any other requirements in the Call
for Volunteers it might help going forward.

Somewhat related...I seem to recall Dan talking about a disclaimer for
individual working group members who reply to comments on the public
comment list [1]. So I just did a search and found his January 2008
message [2].

Dan said that the way to answer on behalf of the WG was to quote (and
cite) WG decisions. He said that WG responders to comments on that
list should explicitly state they were not answering on behalf of the
WG, since commenter were likely to infer that they were. Disclaimers
were attached for a time on that list but I don't know if they
were/are applied consistently.

On 11/7/09, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Let me be clear here: I don't want this to be a witch hunt: the process
> was unclear, and that is the fault of the co-chairs.  What is done is
> done; what I want to know is what changes to the process should we
> consider going forward.  Guidelines from the ASF may help as a starting
> point: we require that everybody have had a chance to review the
> material (which requires public notification and a minimum 72 hour
> period for review, and generally more if we know that there is a
> significant holiday or event or any individual indicates in advance a
> conflict) AND for a minimum of three independent individuals to have
> done so.
> Would a set of rules, perhaps even these ones, have helped in this context?

Yes, I think it may have helped everyone be on the same page.

Here is an idea...If we want to give consensus comments to other
Working Groups, the lazy consensus decision policy [3] may work here.
The reviewer could send their final draft to this list with the CFC
prefix in the subject line (so it is easily filtered) and stipulate
the deadline for objections (whatever time-frame the group feels is
reasonable). If no objections surface in the given time frame,
consensus is declared by default. The (reviewer or maybe a Chair)
sends an email to this list proclaiming consensus. That proclamation
email could be cited as the working group's  decision documentation
when the comments are sent on behalf of this Working Group. If
objections occurred, the reviewer could 1. adjust their document and
try further to gain consensus or 2. send their comments individually
with a disclaimer that they are their individual comments.

Best Regards,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/0196.html
[3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 00:06:52 UTC

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