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

Change proposals and objections: (was: Working Group Decision)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:27:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4C06785C.4050409@intertwingly.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 06/02/2010 10:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010 09:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>    wrote:
>>>> On 06/01/2010 08:03 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>>> Something for people to keep in mind, now -- the chairs don't judge
>>>>> based on the proposals or counter-proposals, only the objections raised
>>>>> in the surveys for both. I don't believe this was clearly stated in the
>>>>> decision process.
>>>> As previously stated, the chairs are attempting to follow the W3C
>>>> process[1], and therefore after all attempts at amicable resolution fail,
>>>> seek to favor proposals that create the weakest objections.
>>> To be completely specific, are these "weakest objections" you speak of
>>> *only* the objections given during the survey, or are the various
>>> proposals counted as objections against each other (when appropriate)?
>>> I specifically avoided commenting on the polls with an objection to
>>> the Change Proposals, as I felt that my objections were adequately
>>> stated in the counter proposals that I helped author.
>>> If the "objections" are only those that appear in the survey, I will
>>> in the future avoid putting any effort into counter proposals, and
>>> save that effort for objecting when the poll comes around instead.
>>> This would be a bad use of process (it would be just moving the
>>> counter-proposal phase into the poll objections phase), but I'm
>>> interested in maximizing the effect of the effort I spend here.
>> I was going to wait a day or so before I mentioned it again, but you
>> recently authored two change proposals which I suggested that you might want
>> to augment.
>> When it comes time for a poll in issues 89 and 92, what URLs should be used
>> to identify the change proposals that people are to register their
>> objections?
> I can rewrite them to include the additional information I've sent to
> the list.  Ping me before the poll comes up if I forget about it.
>> As to your question in this email: the primary purpose of proposals is to
>> make a case FOR something, i.e., provide rationale.  Clearly stated
>> objections contained within a proposal will be considered, but that isn't
>> the primary purpose of a proposal.
>> This is true even for proposals made in response to other proposals (i.e.,
>> counter-proposals).  The chairs made a decision that uncontested content in
>> the spec does not need rationale, but contested material does, and that
>> responses to bug reports and proposals are the place to provide the
>> rationale.
> This doesn't answer my question.  Allow me to make it more direct.  Do
> I hurt my case by merely authoring a change proposal and then not
> repeating my objections in the poll?

Not at all.  Just make sure that the objections are clear, that and 
ensure that each proposal contains adequate rationale for what is being 

Let me be more specific: what exactly is the following objecting to? 
What precisely is it advocating, and why?


The following is slightly better in that one can infer some weak 
objections, but contains precious little rationale beyond the word 
"adequate" (which gives the impression of faint praise?) and "to 
illustrate a *confusing* table" (why is that important to include?):


> ~TJ

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 15:27:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:02 UTC