- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:56:19 -0600
- To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Scott, regarding "3/ what other SDOs do" in http://www.ietf.org/ietf/03nov/newtrk.txt 1. The W3C has, in many ways, recreated the 3-step Proposed, Draft and Full Standard process, with Candiate Rec, Proposed Rec, and Rec. That is: we found it useful/necessary to add Candidate Recommendation to our process as a signal to implementors that the design work was "done" to some extent. This step is new, so we made it optional for any group that can document sufficient implementation experience without announcing an explicit Candidate Rec phase. But most groups are using it now. 2. The main advantage I see in W3C process these days is that we distinguish between decisions made by consensus vs. decisions made despite outstanding dissent. To have a chair or the IESG declare "rough consensus" when some party is on record as objecting doesn't help, but neither does giving everybody veto power. For details, see http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/policies.html#Consensus p.s. This is copied to www-archive@w3.org which makes it publicly available via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/ so feel free to forward as you see fit. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 17:56:20 UTC