A brief description of issue tracker states

hi shawn, thanks for putting issue tracker states info [1] up on the wiki.

a couple of suggestions:

"PENDINGREVIEW = Working Group Chairs will review the Editors'
contributions and determine if Working Group consensus has been
reached"

Implies that only the editors contributions will be taken into account
to determine if the working group has achieved consensus, this
contradicts the HTML working group decisions policy [2].

And undermines a core W3C value, directly referred to in the HTML WG charter.:

"Consensus is a core value of W3C. To promote consensus, the W3C
process requires Chairs to ensure that groups consider all legitimate
views and objections, and endeavor to resolve them, " [3]


Suggest changing to

"PENDINGREVIEW = Working Group Chairs will review the all
contributions and determine if Working Group consensus has been
reached. After due consideration of different opinions, consensus is
not achieved, the Chairs may put a question to the Working Group"


CLOSED = Chairs, Editors or Working Group believes this issue to be RESOLVED.

Implies that the an issue can be closed without consensus being
reached. As an issue can be considered resolved by the "editors"
without the working group considering the issue as resolved or
consensus being reached.

suggest changing to:

"CLOSED = Chairs, Editors and Working Group believes this issue to be
RESOLVED. "


If nobody has objections I will edit the changes.

[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#decisions
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies
-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 09:52:58 UTC