Re: Call for comments: New charter for WebRTC Working Group

On 02/09/2015 11:28 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 1:38 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The second issue is all the documents that are joint work with with
>>> the DeviceWG. Having theses as joint work substantial complicates the
>>> issues of resolving issues near the end the draft.
>> I'm somewhat surprised by that comment; my impression had been that most of the overhead that having two groups implied was shouldered by the chairs and myself. And it didn't seem to me that our delays in getting gUM to Last Call had anything to do with having two WGs involved.
>>
>>> It's not even
>>> really clear what would happen if the two WG had conflicting views on
>>> how to resolve an issue in the draft.
>> The same thing that would happen if different participants in a single WG had conflicting views (chairs seek consensus, make a decision if none is found, director intervenes if there is a formal objection).
> We have not yet finished anything or got it to the stage where problems occur. You want to explain how
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Votes
>
> is going to work out for things in two WGs?
>
>
Is there a specific stage where problems occur? I hadn't noticed.....

Speaking about the formalities, my assumption would be that the group 
that has an issue has to take it to a vote. It's by no means certain 
that two groups have an issue; one may have consensus, or simply not 
have enough people who care about the issue to make it an issue.

If we have two votes in two groups with opposite outcomes, we will have 
a problem. But I don't think we're likely to get there (how many groups 
have actually performed voting during the last year?)

Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 08:16:38 UTC