Re: the MathML comments

On Nov 7, 2009, at 4:49 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Laura Carlson wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> I commend Shelley for taking the initiative to send comments to  
>> MathML
>> WG. She stepped up to the Chair's call for volunteers. [1]. She
>> drafted a response and gathered input from the HTMLWG [2]. She
>> provided high quality feedback on schedule [3]. Shelley effectively
>> and responsibly produced an excellent caliber of work; completed it
>> thoroughly and accurately; paid attention to detail; contributed to
>> the improvement of the quality of the services provided by this
>> working group.
>> Outstanding work Shelley. Your strong dedication and commitment to
>> excellence is very much needed and appreciated.
>> The HTMLWG currently lacks a formal procedure to respond other  
>> working
>> groups. Perhaps the Chairs could draft a procedure to clarify a  
>> formal
>> process if something different is needed (formal consensus in lieu of
>> lazy consensus).
>
> +1
>
> At the present time, this working group does not seek consensus on  
> comments that are provided to other working groups.  In addition to  
> everything Laura said above, I will ask that until or unless we  
> decide to start requiring consensus on comments that nobody treat  
> statements such as the one that Maciej made as anything other than a  
> simple statement of fact.

Indeed, more than anything it was the Chairs' fault for not clearly  
specifying what to do when passing comments along.

>
> Speaking only for myself: I generally don't appreciate being on the  
> receiving end of a "consensus position of group XYZ" where I have  
> not been given an opportunity to participate in the discussion that  
> lead up to the position.  I much prefer a dialog.  That being said,  
> there is an existing culture in various groups of the W3C, and we  
> need to understand and respect that.  If a group requires a  
> consensus position from us, it makes sense for us to honor that  
> preference.  If a group does not require such but finds it valuable  
> for us to collect up comments then we should take that route.
>
> As this is something that I see us doing again, and without further  
> discussing what was said previously, 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."

I think it would be good for a statement along those lines to  
accompany collected comments to other Working Groups. Indeed, it is  
probably a better choice than seeking

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 01:50:54 UTC