- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:26:53 +0200
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:05:11 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 17 May 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> >> >> In the past have declined to grant extensions that are unbounded or >> >> triggered by some other action, rather than for a fixed amount of >> >> time. >> > >> > What is the deadline by which issues 30, 31, 41, 56, 66, 80, and 88 >> > will be decided by the chairs? >> >> There is no deadline More to the point, the chairs are required to get the group to reach a consensus, where possible, and proceed to another resolution mechanism where consensus is impossible to achieve. Which is a deadline, just not one that is expressed as a particular date. > It seems unfair to require working group members to work to deadlines, > refusing unbounded extensions or deadlines that are based on other > actions, when the chairs are not similarly bound to strict deadlines. There is a difference between a deadline for an activity which takes some amount of time, and one which is triggered by some event. In balancing these, it seems reasonable to impose deadlines on writing certain things that are important to reaching the relevant events. (s/chairs/editor/ in your phrase and it appears to make as much sense - but in practise you operate by going through an issue and using the deadline "when all the feedback has been incorporated" or something along those lines. Is a clear way to improve the management of volunteered resources and a fundamental requirement for quality that the chairs should be adopting?). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 10:28:13 UTC