- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 08:03:56 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > Hello HTML WG Chairs, > > I think the decision process for our first formal resolution has not > turned out so well. Counting every "no" vote as a Formal Objection means > that to register any kind of dissent, one must automatically lie across > the metaphorical railroad tracks, requiring either work stoppage or > escalation of the dispute. I think this creates two problems: > > 1) People who disagree with the majority feel pressured not to vote > "no", since it would potentially impede the progress of the group. In a > straw poll, people should feel free to vote their conscience without > worrying they may put the work of the group at risk. This isn't a straw poll. People who just want to express disagreement without formally objecting are supposed to just express that disagreement in email or in the rationale field and abstain. > 2) People who do want to register their disagreement automatically > escalate it to the most serious level just by virtue of their "no" vote. > For example, I don't think the voter who said he liked the name "HTML > 5.01" better than "HTML 5" necessarily would have chosen to escalate it > to the Director after the vote. True, he probably didn't understand what I meant the "no" option to mean when he chose it. That makes for a little extra "paperwork," but it doesn't seriously impact things. > In many W3C Working Groups, resolutions often carry just by majority > vote, with dissentors given the opportunity to lodge a Formal Objection > afterwards if they still strongly disagree. Often the Formal Objection > is only done at LC time so there is plenty time to work things out > before the FO has to be recorded for the Director. I suggest the chairs > adopt this process for future WG decisions. I expect to give participants various chances to withdraw their objections. > Furthermore, ordinary > comments on a Working Draft or Last Call draft are not normally > automatically considered as Formal Objections, even if the resolution is > "Disagree". Generally the disputant has to explicitly say it is a Formal > Objection. > > > I propose that for future resolutions, "no" votes be treated only as > ordinary statements of disagreement. Only if the dissentor explicitly > chooses to escalate his dissent to a Formal Objection should it be > treated as such. WBS doesn't currently support that, as far as I know. Perhaps I'll look into getting it enhanced. > This way, Formal Objections will be the rare special > appeals they were meant to be and not commonplace features of the > decision process. > > > Regards, > Maciej > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 13:04:13 UTC