- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:41:12 +0200
- To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Chris Wilson" <chris.wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:26:16 +0200, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> It may sound odd, but as far as I can tell that's how it works per our >> charter. (Though it seems a bit derogatory to say that about Ian, as he >> quite clearly explains why changes are made). > > There is no where in the charter that I can see, where it says the > only way to have something added to the spec is at the editors > discretion, can you point it out to me if there is? http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter#decisions states: As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. We expect that typically, an editor makes an initial proposal, which is refined in discussion with Working Group members and other reviewers, and consensus emerges with little formal decision-making. it then continues with stating what should happen in case consensus does not arise: However, if a decision is necessary for timely progress, but after due consideration of different opinions, consensus is not achieved, the Chair should put a question (allowing for remote, asynchronous participation using, for example, email and/or web-based survey techniques) and record a decision and any objections, and consider the matter resolved, at least until new information becomes available. > Why then after consideration the chairs decide that something should > it not be added to the spec, does it automatically need to go to a > vote? Because that's how our charter works. > it can then be challenged if there is a groundswell of > opposition. It can also be challenged if it's not in the specification. (Which is what is happening, by raising issues, sending e-mail, et cetera.) > We are not after all here asking for some loony tune addition with no > hope of adoption, we are asking for a very minor change that is > proven to work and is well supported and has no or little > implementation overhead for browser vendors (please correct me if I am > wrong). There's no exception clause for minor changes as far as I can tell. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 11:41:34 UTC