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

Re: Change Proposals, objections, and the Decision Policy

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:01:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTiljaHY-rQ06b5_Kw8_7vy1QEW5lvTTYMLKZ3VZH@mail.gmail.com>
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?

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 02:01:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:03 UTC