Re: the MathML comments

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 9:02 PM, Simon Pieters wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:20:30 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 3) It's also possible to have a call for consensus on cross-WG 
>>> comments. But I agree with Sam that it's more considerate to send 
>>> collected comments from individuals, because then the receiving WG 
>>> knows who to talk to if they disagree. Indeed, I'd suggest that 
>>> future cross-WG comments should name the individuals who provided them.
>>
>> Maybe the individuals can send their feedback to the relevant WG 
>> directly (unless the relevant WG explicitly prefer one batch email 
>> with feedback)?
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/op.u20tqopiidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local
> 
> We could do that, but I suspect that if we did not have an organized 
> effort of some kind, we would likely deliver significantly less feedback.

Is there any evidence for that e.g. specs that have previously requested 
review from HTMLWG members but have not received it? I remember that 
ARIA received a significant amount of review but did not have any 
particular person driving it.

Personally, my preferred procedure would be something like this:

A) Some group requests review from HTMLWG of the spec. The charis from 
HTMLWG inform that group that due to the way our group is structured we 
cannot deliver consensus comments but we can individually provide comments.

B) The HTMLWG chairs inform this list that there is some spec asking for 
review and encouraging people to send feedback, with the deadline. 
People wishing to provide feedback do so, CCing in public-html on any 
comments that they make that also touch on HTML so that there can be 
interactive discussion about the content (hopefully also with the other 
working group although I know some groups treat processing comments as a 
black box operation).

C) If no one is providing comment the chairs continue to remind people 
that comments are desired until the point that it is obvious that the 
spec is of no interest to anyone in the group (or the deadline has passed).

I think that the notion of "consensus" in this group is essentially a 
formal one; we can meet some formal conditions for consensus but are 
unlikely to find any interesting questions on which there is widespread 
agreement amongst all group members. I would prefer to keep the 
mechanisms for assessing formal consensus for situations in which it is 
truly needed.

Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 10:26:52 UTC