W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Some procedures for handling and closing ISSUEs

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:11:26 -0800
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E4C2724B22BA4E2FB900A9ED279C35D9@gmail.com>
Matthias,

Could you clarify your view that "[s]ilence means agreement"?  Are you suggesting that, once a participant has expressed a concern, they have the burden of perpetually re-raising that concern?

Thanks,
Jonathan


On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:

> Hi Team,
> 
> 
> ISSUEs formalise specific questions under discussion in the group.
> 
> In order to ensure that we are all on the same page and continue to 
> operate smoothly,
> I would like to give some info/background on handling of ISSUES.
> 
> Questions/feedback is welcome!
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> STATE of an ISSUE: Each issue has a status that can be
> RAISED: Someone (anyone) believes that this is a topic to discuss
> OPEN: Questions/topics under active discussion
> PENDING_REVIEW: The discussion has concluded and a proposed 
> resolution is on the table
> CLOSED: We accepted the proposed resolution
> POSTPONED: We decided not to discuss this issue at this point in time.
> 
> GENERAL:
> 1. - Issues should usually only be closed if there is an documented 
> proposal that does not trigger sustained and substantiated objections 
> (i.e., everyone can live with this option).
> 2. - If this is not possible (i.e., none of the proposals is acceptable 
> following point (1)), then the chairs may ask for input and decide
> [so far, we only needed executed (2) a single time]
> 
> ON OBJECTIONS
> - Silence means agreement, i.e., if I ask for objections and nobody 
> reponds, I assume agreement and consensus.
> - Please only speak for yourself/ your organisation: Do not send emails 
> like "I believe that Joe objects". I am likely to ignore such emails in 
> the future.
> [Note: It is OK to send wakeup emails behind the scenes ("hey joe, 
> are you aware that Matthias is closing this issue")]
> - Try to substantiate your objection/concern and indicate what changes 
> you would like to see
> 
> CLOSING via EMAIL
> - If I attempt to close issues via Email, I send an explicit email 
> asking whether anyone sustains and substantiates an objections (the 
> emails usually saying "Batch closing...")
> - Usually, I only attempt this if I perceive sufficient agreement in the 
> group (I may be wrong)
> - If you believe further discussion is needed or that I misrepresented 
> the status of this issue, please respond.
> 
> CLOSING at a F2F:
> - We may decide to close issues during F2F meetings
> - This will be reflected in the minutes
> - In the future, I will do a better job informing all participants 
> (e.g., my an email saying that we decided to close issues A, B, C)
> 
> Meaning of "CLOSED"
> - Once an ISSUE is CLOSED, we believe that we have resolved the question 
> at hand - either by answering it or it became irrelevant
> - Usually, ISSUEs are only re-opened if we receive new information/insight
> - You can still provide new insight / input / observations to convince 
> the group to re-open an issue.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 09:11:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:18 UTC