W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Change Proposals and Counter-Proposals (was Re: Issues 89 through 97)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:36:31 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa1001181736g21554915hb554b76911254e4c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
On 1/18/10, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This approach is originally Sam's idea, and I am pleased with the way it's
>> been working out. I don't think Sam is saying we're going to change
>> things. But he *is* saying that the counter-proposal period is not
>> guaranteed, and if a Change Proposal is either a clear winner or a clear
>> loser just from mailing list discussion, we may not bother formally
>> calling for alternatives.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
> That's not a step in the Decision process. The decision process states
> that if the change proposal has general acclaim, it will most likely
> be passed by consensus. If the change proposal has little or no
> support, regardless of how it is written, it probably won't even go to
> the poll.
> It's only if the poll is indeterminate can the chairs call for another
> round of proposals. From the procedure:
> "3. Discussion
> The Change Proposal (or multiple Proposals) may be discussed and
> revised for a reasonable period. Authors of Change Proposals are
> strongly encouraged to seek consensus and revise their Change
> Proposals to gain more support. Change Proposals that do not see wide
> support are unlikely to succeed. Once an outcome is clear or no more
> productive discussion is happening, the chairs proceed to the next
> step.
> 4. Call for Consensus
> If the chairs believe it is clear whether the existing spec or some
> available Change Proposal enjoys consensus, they issue a Call for
> Consensus to solicit objections. Based on the response, proceed to the
> appropriate substep of step 5. If there is not enough clarity to make
> such a Call in the first place, the chairs may proceed directly to
> step 5.b without a Call for Consensus.
> 5.a. Consensus Found
> If there are no objections, very few (and weak) objections, or
> objections can be resolved, the chairs declare that the Call for
> Consensus becomes a resolution. The Working Group affirms or overrules
> the editor's decision depending on the outcome. The Basic Process then
> proceeds from step 7a or step 7b as appropriate. ** This is an
> endpoint for the escalation process. **
> 5.b. No Clear Consensus
> If there are numerous and/or serious objections, or if it is unclear
> to the chairs what the position of the working group is, the chairs
> may use a poll to get a sense of the working group.
> 6. Poll or Vote
> A WG decision may be entered based on an informative straw poll as one
> piece of input, or based on a formal and binding vote. Or the chairs
> can ask for a new round of proposals if the poll does not reveal a
> strongly preferred position; in this case, return to step 3.
> Otherwise, the Working Group affirms or overrules the editor's
> decision depending on the outcome."
> There is nothing in this that states, "We will put out a call for
> counter-proposals when a change proposal is submitted". Not only that
> but, "We will put out MULTIPLE calls for counter-proposals, telling
> people the counter-proposal has to be finished in a month".

Shelley is absolutely right that the policy does not mention or define
counter proposals.

>From all I have gathered the concept seems to have been put into
affect as an extension to the decision policy after the call for

Best Regards,

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 01:37:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:57 UTC