Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Rigo Wenning <> 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.

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