On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > On 20/05/2015 19:15, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> Decision Policy >> >> As explained in the Process Document ( section 3.3 ), this group >> will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair >> puts a question and observes dissent, after due consideration of >> different opinions, the Chair should record a decision (possibly >> after a formal vote) and any objections, and move on. >> >> >> This seems to paraphrase the W3C process see >> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#Consensus). >> I would prefer to simply remove this text and point to the process, >> rather than trying to figure out >> whether there is a conflict. >> > > Note that this text is already in our current charter. Yeah, I just noticed that. I don't think it's great but in view of that I'll withdraw my objection. > >> Editors are responsible for reflecting the consensus from the >> Working Group in the specifications; where editors bring technical >> solutions in the specifications that have not been reviewed by the >> group, these solutions are annotated to reflect their status. >> >> >> I don't really understand the clause after the semicolon. Can you expand >> on what this >> is intended to mean? >> > > Some groups operate under a work mode where editors are defining specs on > their own, and unless someone complains, the stuff is assumed to have > consensus. This works well in cases where the complexity or the stakes > around a given spec aren't very high. The intent here is to make it clear > that the WebRTC WG is not operating under such a mode. > OK, well, I certainly didn't get that. Perhaps a rewrite is in order. -Ekr
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 21:26:34 UTC