Re: HTML Working Group Decision Policy - for discussion

[[ Snipping good input for consideration to changes to the draft policy 
-- at the moment Maciej "has the pen", and I'll let him respond to those 
parts ]]]

Shelley Powers wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:

[snip]

>> We have a number of people (currently 26) with access to the 
>> tracker... and I am willing to add more.  If you are not happy with 
>> the text in an issue, let me know and I will either correct it or open 
>> a new issue.

[snip]

> I still have a very real concern about how the issue gets worded in the 
> Issue Tracker.
> 
> For instance, I submitted two bugs on the re-use of dt/dd [1][2]. I 
> mentioned two concerns: the redefining of the semantics of the elements, 
> and the fact that syntactic differences will cause confusion to authors 
> in the future.
> 
> When it was moved to the Issue Tracker, it was done so as "The content 
> models for the <figure> and <details> elements use the <dt> and <dd> 
> elements, but give them different semantics."
> 
> That doesn't cover my concerns. Sure the bugs are referenced in the 
> Issue Tracker, but that requires that a person follow the bugs, and that 
> isn't always going to happen when people are being asked to consider the 
> issue.
> 
> This may seem minor, but when the item is moved to the Issue Tracker, I 
> no longer have any control over how my concerns are expressed. And the 
> new procedures document does not address how a person submits an edit, 
> or new information. I believe additional material in this regard would 
> be helpful.

Rejoin the group, and I will add you directly.  Alternately, send me the 
text you would prefer (posting to this list is fine) and as I said 
above, I will either correct the issue or open a new issue (in this 
particular case, updating the issue is far more likely).

[snip]

>>> The escalational process for determining how to manage the issue does 
>>> not reflect the most likely fact that the bugs/issues during Last 
>>> Call will come from outside of the group. If the call for volunteers 
>>> only occurs during the WG teleconference, which I'm having to assume 
>>> happens, because this is not mentioned in the document, there's no 
>>> opportunity for the person who submits the bug/issue to be involved 
>>> with authoring a change proposal for submittal to the group.
>>
>> I'm not following.  Nothing will happen exclusively in WG 
>> teleconferences, the group is open to everybody who is willing to 
>> agree to the patent policy, and we have plenty of people who will 
>> assist with the mechanics of everything from adding a link from an 
>> issue to a proposal to doing actual updates in cvs.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't believe that telling someone to join the group is 
> a viable way of dealing with people's concerns.

I did not tell you (or anybody else) to join the group, I merely 
mentioned it as an option.

[snip]

> How does one register a Formal Objection to the HTML WG? Do we send an 
> email to the HTML WG list, with the Issue in the subject line? Do we use 
> the words "Formal Objection" in the subject line, too?

Formal Objections are to be addressed to the Director.  It generally is 
a good idea to cite the WG decision that you are objecting to (note: in 
this context, it is not an editor's decision, but a WG decision. 
Raising an Issue is a good way to get a WG decision, and we are trying 
to make reporting a bug a pre-req for creating an issue).

Formal Objections SHOULD as well as cite technical arguments and propose 
changes that would remove the Formal Objection.

>>> Shelley
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 17:23:15 UTC