- From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:23:22 -0800
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>, Sean Harvey <sharvey@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CAF4kx8eRon4+sM7Rv=rKnONdp5QhwN5L0pwcFaq=siwXb6xy0Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote: > Ian, Sean, > > do you have a specific issue in mind that you're concerned the chairs will > rush to close without asking your opinion? Or is it the theoretic > possibility > to close an issue if there is no contribution that raises your concern? > I am certainly concerned about the latter, which does not preclude concerns about the former. > > If it is the former, I'm sure the Chairs are ready to address this issue. > If > it is the latter, as W3C Legal counsel, I'm happy to take that discussion > offline with you to explain options and re-assure you that the W3C Process > is > fair and balanced and will not force you into things that you don't want. > > Rigo, I certainly thought I understood W3C process having been involved with W3C in various forms for the past 6 years. This is the first time I've seen such a process proposed, especially outside of a chartering process, and I do not think it is a positive change nor is it one I would support. I understand quite well the obligations of members (or lack thereof) when it comes to implementation, but I think there's an elephant in the room in that there is a lot of outside interest in this document and process that adds significantly more pressure than would normally be the case with a W3C recommendation, hence I think it's all the more important that issues are well documented and understood, regardless of whether there is a clear resolution that is proposed at a given point in time. > Sean, minutes are online and in IRC at the meeting. If you feel you haven't > agreed, please send a reply to the email announcing the minutes to the > Group > with a detailed response on what you meant to say. We are not in an > ultimate > formal setup where we would have to call Aleecia "Mrs. Chairman" every > time we > address her. If there is no announcement, just send email to the public > mailing-list. We can link that from the minutes. > > Best, > > Rigo > > > > On Wednesday 07 March 2012 21:01:33 Ian Fette wrote: > > The process document states "If no text proposals are written for an > issue, > > the chairs may choose to close the issue for apparent lack of interest." > -- > > this is the specific point I am objecting to. If it said "the chairs may > > propose to the group closing the issue" that would be one thing, but this > > proposed process document implies something quite different that I do not > > agree with. >
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:24:00 UTC