- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:25:17 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, 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>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Sam Ruby On 09-11-08 00.59: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Sam Ruby On 09-11-07 22.52: > The only remaining question is: how can we do better? Clarity from the chairs in how (when) the process should end and how (by whom) the comments should be sent to the other WG would probably have made sure that none of the chairs would have felt taken by surprise in public at the conference (if this was the main problem here). >>> Would a set of rules, perhaps even these ones, have helped in this >>> context? >> 72 hours sounds OK to me, though. Just make clear that the rule is valid >> also during W3 conferences. Or else, I think we could still hear >> complaints. > > I want to make it clear that at the ASF, while 72 hours is an absolute > minimum it is no way considered a maximum. The ASF would tolerate, for > example, somebody calling for a vote at 9PM on December 23rd and calling > the vote complete on December 26th. While we need to set a minimum, we > also need to provide an opportunity for people to request an extension > (perhaps even on behalf of others), and then we need those that didn't > take the opportunity to participate to respect the results. > > If somebody -- anybody -- said, for example, that we needed to hold back > for a few days in order to give Joe an opportunity to contribute, we > should respect that request -- but only if the request was for a short > extension and to accommodate a specific set of circumstances. But > unless such a request is made, we need to be allowed the freedom to > proceed quickly. > > Make sense? Sounds good to me. When I said "also during W3 conferences", then I meant that if the chairs think that publishing such a thing during a conference is a bad idea, then you could, next time, delay it in advance. Also, we could have had the rule that such comments are to be sent to *this* list, with a disclaimer that it is not officially delivered to the other WG until the chairs have notified the WG about the response. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 02:25:54 UTC