- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:06:06 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > James Graham wrote: >> ... >> Nevertheless, for better or worse the charter puts the burden of >> proof on those wishing for a formal decision to be made to >> demonstrate that the decision is needed for progress. Is there a >> documented reason that this particular decision was so important that >> it should circumvent the usual proposal-draft-feedback-redraft cycle? >> We have recently seen the ... > > My understanding of that cycle (*) is that it implies that there's no > way to get something into the spec the editor doesn't want in there. > That would be a problem. The decision making process in the charter specifically documents how to break that cycle. The first requirement is to demonstrate that there is a need to do so.
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 12:06:50 UTC