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

Re: Change Proposals, objections, and the Decision Policy

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:29:42 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <EC5898EF-6328-472D-99AC-8AEADD01A678@apple.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>

On Jun 14, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> 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?

We have discussed this issue before. We seek to evaluate the strength of objections based on those objections having strong technical rationale, and not based on the vehemence with which the objection is expressed.

If you see a difference between framing in terms of technical merit and framing in terms of an objection with strong technical rationale, then make whatever changes you see fit.

I will also add that explicitly using the words "object" or "objection" is not required, but explicitly identifying something as an objection makes it less likely that it will be overlooked.

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 02:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC