Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

I agree with many of the comments made thus far, so will focus on how we 
work together, manage our working documents and reach consensus.

The biggest topic has to be establishing a collegial and constructive 
environment where we're participating in good faith and members of the 
working group feel we can safely participate and represent our opinions 
and expertise.

There's also the issue of the workflow of the group. It's very hard to 
keep track of what's changing in the documents, whether editors are 
making minor or major changes, and whether editors have incorporated 
changes that have been agreed to as consensus of the group. How 
frequently can or must the same issue be raised before it's accepted as 
either consensus or not? Are the tools we're using sufficient for 
informed and effective participation by the group's members: does CVS, 
IRC, mailing lists, and calls really fulfil our text-construction needs, 
or could we do better with other structures, especially with such a big 
group?

We have the vital question of how we reach last call and see 
implementations, given the criticality of some of the topics on which we 
disagree. Further: how would we identify conformant implementations when 
so much of the proposed spec is unobservable?

What normative principles do we use when making content decisions? How 
many members can disagree and how strongly before we reach consensus on a
point? What sort of arguments is it reasonable for members to use to 
base their disagreement? Can members simply disagree without normative 
explanation?

Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 16:58:56 UTC