W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2008

Re: tracker already has ternary state - RAISED

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 13:44:52 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0806071144k91f0da2xc1e508af8ef2d81c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org

Hi Anne,

>>> So far it seems that if there's agreement between implementors and
>>> authors that a certain problem needs solving that is considered to
>>> be in scope something to solve the problem will be added to the
>>> be in scope specification. Which is then incrementally evolved by
>>> author and implementor feedback over the next few years.

>> So...
>> Step number one is...?
>> Step number two is...?
>> Step number three is...?
>> etc.
>> Last step is proposal is  incorporated into spec.

> I guess I'm saying that in the four years we've been working on this
> there hasn't been a need for this.

Process and procedures may not be needed in some circumstances, (for
instance small or fairly homogeneous organizations or among those with
like goals). But the larger and more the diverse an organization is
the more they are needed, especially if input is truly wanted.

>> Where does bugzilla fit in?
>> Where does issue tracker fit in?

> These would be additional sources of input.

They could be delineated as part of the process flow then.

>> In your statement above:
>> Where and how is this agreement made?

> Mailing list primarily.

That could be part of the process too.

>> Which implementors and authors are you referring to?

> Those providing input to the specification in one way or another.

They would be  stakeholders in the  process and stated as such.

> Main criteria is that there's reasonable broad agreement. Of course, that doesn't mean
> there's agreement over the specifics.

Defining terms like "reasonable" and "broad agreement" would be a big help too.

>> Those should  be included in the procedure's  path if they are
>> critical.

> I'm not sure having a formal procdure for this is needed, to
> be honest.

Like I mentioned before policies and procedures can:

- Help everyone be aware of what is expected
- Help prevent misunderstandings about expectations
- Standardize operations
- Provide more clarity and consistency
- Encourage stability and continuity in operations
- Stabilize action despite top-level changes
- Discourage actions based on personalities
- Help avoid future conflict

But most of all, a policy and procedures would help show that the W3C
means to be above-board, fair, and accountable and not arbitrary,
inconsistent, unjust, partial, disenfranchising,  or discriminating.

Best regards,
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2008 18:47:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:30 UTC