- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:01:09 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 06/14/2010 08:49 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> A lot of the discussion around Change Proposals and the Decision >> Process seems to revolve around the "strength of objections." Would >> it make my proposal more likely to convince the chairs if I edited my >> proposal to more strongly object to the opposing viewpoint? >> >> Previously, I was under the impression that technical merit was the >> salient criterion, so I couched my proposal in terms of technical >> trade-offs. I can certainly be more of an objectionist if that's what >> the chairs desire. > > The full quote and context can be found here: > > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#managing-dissent > > It isn't lengthy, so I have quoted the full text here: > > "In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a > group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair MAY record a > decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least one Formal > Objection) so that the group may make progress (for example, to produce a > deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters cannot stop a group's work > simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision. When the Chair > believes that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of > dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group SHOULD move on. > > Groups SHOULD favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is > preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that > cause strong objections from a few people. As part of making a decision > where there is dissent, the Chair is expected to be aware of which > participants work for the same (or related) Member organizations and weigh > their input accordingly." I guess the question is how you and the other chairs interpret this text. Are the chairs more likely to accept my proposal if I frame it in terms of a strong objection or in terms of technical merit? Adam
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 02:01:59 UTC