W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: ISSUE-127: link-type-flags - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:27:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4D7ABDF5.8060507@intertwingly.net>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/11/2011 05:08 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Chairs, is it correct that Working Group Decisions are based only on
> the Change Proposals and objections presented?  Specifically, do the
> chairs consider things like e-mails on public-html or link-relations
> that were not mentioned in any Change Proposal or objection?  How
> about entire e-mail threads that are indirectly linked from objections
> with no explanation of their significance in the objection itself,
> like<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00010.html>
> (which is linked to from
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0139.html>
> which is linked to from Julian's objection to the zero-edit proposal)?
>   I'm under the impression that the Change Proposal is required to
> contain a full rationale in compact form, to permit Working Group
> members to easily understand the proposal *without* having to track
> through e-mail archives and similar.  If Change Proposals can be
> accepted based on arguments that are scattered throughout many e-mails
> that don't directly deal with the issue at hand, it makes it much
> harder for Working Group members to give informed responses in the
> survey.

What we have said to date is that nobody should assume that we will look 
at anything other than the Change Proposal and objections presented.  In 
more recent decisions, we have tried to hold more closely to that 
principle, but we do allow people to post their objections to 
www-archive or public-html and reference them via a URI.

As an example where we have gone beyond what is stated in a survey or in 
a Change Proposal, recently a decision was posted[1] that included a 
"quick scan of the spec".  A basic familiarity with the contents of the 
spec IS presumed.

As to rationales, three points.

First, the detail section is expected to be specific enough to be 
applied (and evaluated) without ambiguity.  We have pushed back a number 
of times on this.

As to rationales, there isn't a hard rule that we have been enforcing. 
If this turns out to be something that we need to correct, we can start 
to push back more.  Based on what I have seen historically, I would 
expect that to affect alternate or counter change proposals more often 
than initial proposals.

Finally, we have seen a number of cases where people objected to the way 
a rationale was expressed or to statements that the authors of one of 
the proposals made elsewhere.  Generally such objections appear in the 
"Arguments not considered" section of decisions.

Note: the above concerns rationales as expressed in Change Proposals. 
Objections to any text that appears in the spec are considered.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0161.html
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2011 00:28:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:33 UTC