- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:50:09 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
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