Re: HTML Working Group Decision Policy - for discussion

On Oct 7, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

>> Our Working Group is required to do everything in a way that  
>> enables asynchronous participation. I added the following to the  
>> policy:
>> "Requests for Change Proposals will go out to the HTML WG mailing  
>> list and possibly via other channels as well."
>> My expectation is that we'll issue each call for volunteers on the  
>> public-html mailing list at a minimum, and likely also on the  
>> telecons.
>>> How does the WG submit an issue for volunteers that encompasses  
>>> effort both outside of the group and in?
>> I'm not sure what you have in mind. Could you give an example?
> I'm thinking that a direct email could also be sent to the person  
> who submitted the bug, and escalated the issue. There's a way to  
> subscribe to the bug, but it would be nice if non-HTML WG members  
> were aware when they're issue is being discussed outside of the Bug  
> database.
> However, if the Chairs send a request for change proposal to the  
> HTML WG, that should probably be OK. Most of us keep up with the  
> group.

We can make an effort to notify other persons of interest, but the  
only thing I can promise definitively is that the HTML WG will be  

> Is there a way to subscribe to the issues in the Issue Tracker?

That I don't know. Mike?

>>> Finally, I couldn't find in the document a clear procedure about  
>>> how Formal Objections are made, and tracked. Do we write these up  
>>> as separate documents, and submit? Are these recorded somewhere?  
>>> Do we send these to the HTML WG email list? If I remember  
>>> correctly, the W3C process doesn't do a good job of stating where  
>>> FO should be submitted, nor does it cover how these are made  
>>> publicly available. Frankly, I've also been given the impression  
>>> that Formal Objections submitted by individuals will not be  
>>> considered by the Director: only submittals by organizations. Can  
>>> this be clarified in the document?
>> The document says, for step 9.a:
>> "If the commenter does wish to enter a Formal Objection, he or she  
>> should do so according to W3C Process. This includes explicitly  
>> stating that it is a Formal Objection, as well as giving a  
>> technical justification for the objection. The Formal Objection  
>> should be recorded in the bugzilla bug, and the bug should be  
>> placed in the CLOSED state and tagged with the FormalObjection  
>> keyword."
>> So the right place to record a Formal Objection is in bugzilla.  
>> Note that this option is only available after going through the  
>> whole Basic Process and the whole Escalation Process. I added that  
>> a Formal Objection should mention at least one way the objection  
>> could be removed.
> Again, I must have missed this one. Sorry, next time I'll try to  
> read more carefully.
> So we record a Formal Objection in Bugzilla? I'll be honest and say  
> I'm not comfortable with this. This seems like a very inappropriate  
> place to put something such as a Formal Objection. If this is the  
> only way this can work, I guess we'll have to live with it, but what  
> happens to the Formal Objection once it's in the Bugzilla database?

The reason we're asking for Formal Objections to be recorded in the  
bug is so that we can generate the Disposition of Comments by running  
a script against bugzilla. This means that for every bug reported  
during Last Call (and probably starting somewhat earlier), we'll  
report the following: resolution, whether we accepted or rejected the  
comment, whether the commenter agrees or disagrees, whether the issue  
was editorial or substantive, and whether the commenter entered a  
Formal Objection. In the case of Formal Objections, we will also  
include the full text of the Formal Objection statement. All of this  
will be reported to the Director when we ask to move from Last Call to  
Candidate Recommendation. The objector is, of course, also free to  
send additional notice of the Formal Objection by email or the like.  
But we'd like it in bugzilla so that all the information needed to  
generate our Disposition of Comments can be in one place.

There's also a question you asked above that I forgot to answer:  
nothing in the W3C Process gives special status to Formal Objections  
from organizations, compared to those from individuals. It is  
completely up to the Director to decide how to handle Formal  
Objections. As part of this process, the Director often asks for input  
from the Chairs and the W3C Team, to establish context.

It's good to get all the details of the Formal Objection process  
clarified. But for now, I suggest focusing more on the earlier steps  
in the process: bugzilla bugs, Issues, and Change Proposals. If  
commenters approaches these earlier steps already thinking about a  
Formal Objection, then we are less likely to get good results.


Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 04:48:09 UTC