a couple thoughts on newtrk

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