- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:50:29 +0300
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:24, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Oct 8, 2009, at 12:26 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Oct 7, 2009, at 12:04, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >>> It's very important for Working Group members to read this >>> document and give questions or comments. Once we settle on a >>> policy, we're going to follow the procedures outlined and will >>> expect Working Group members to be the same. So now is a great >>> time to ask about things that are unclear, or suggest improvements. >> >> It's unclear to me if issues can be revisited once an endpoint of >> the escalation process has been reached. >> >> If person A escalates and indicates that (s)he'll produce a Change >> Proposal but fails and the issue becomes deferred, can person B re- >> escalate the same issue and undefer it? Can person A re-escalate? >> (I'd expect it to be out of order if person A re-escalates.) > > I think it would be out of order for anyone to re-escalate an issue > that has timed out (or a nominally separate but effectively > identical issue). That kind of rule would make the process vulnerable to attack, as dbaron already observed. >> This policy doesn't seem to cover how the WG decides to take on new >> deliverables. Is that intentional? > > Taking on new deliverables in practice boils down to two publication > decisions: publishing a First Public Working Draft and going to Last > Call. I assume once we go to Last Call we likely intend to stick > with it through REC, but FPWD does not carry any implication that we > will proceed further on the REC track. We did not document the > process for these kinds of publication decisions; the policy focuses > on decisions about spec content. Do you think these steps need to be > explicitly documented somewhere? Our de facto practice seems to be > that a lazy consensus resolution or poll is sufficient for FPWD, but > there is no precedent yet for LC. It seems odd to me to document a process even for responding to other WGs but not to document the process for taking on new FPWDs. After all, the W3C Process makes completely disposing of a document impossible once it has reached FPWD, so it seems like a bad idea to take on FPWDs too lightly. (It seems that outside the W3C people put more weight on WG Notes than is appropriate considering how WG Notes are published. I noticed Wikipedia even referring to WG Notes as "W3C Notes". Thus, it's probably a good idea to avoid a situation where the WG has to published Notes it doesn't really endorse at all.) Previously a policy of requiring a certain number of independent (as determined by the chairs) WG participants who've volunteered to work on a spec was put forward. Is that policy still in effect and have the chairs identified the required independent volunteers for the documents that have recently been put forward for FPWD? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 15:51:06 UTC