W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

Request for clarifications and expansions in "decision policy" document

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:54:54 -0800
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D4B9F78@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
In a previous discussion about process, someone said:

> I'd really like to see this turned 
> into concrete input on how we can do it differently.

Now that there is some experience with the "decision policy"
I think it would be very helpful to revise it to cover
items that we seem to be doing even if not described,
and even some gaps where "we'll figure it out when
we get to it".
Things we seem to be doing although not documented,
and might be put into the "decision policy":

In the escalation process, the chairs review change 
proposals, and ask for resubmission if they believe
the change proposal doesn't meet the requirements for
a change proposal. It's not clear how many times this
can happen or whether it affects the deadline.

Once a change proposal is accepted, the chairs seem to
be soliciting counter-proposals, or even "no change

If a bug resolution results in the document being
split, we seem to be doing a CfC for publishing the
split parts as FPWD. 

Things that aren't clear:

After CfC for FPWD, it isn't clear what happens
if there isn't consensus. 

What happens when:
(1) a bug is submitted, (2) the editor responds,
(3) the person reporting the bug is satisfied with the
change, but (4) other working group members are not?
Do working group members watch bug fixes and then
open new bugs?

When (as happened) a "bug fix" results in a split of
the spec, and a working group member is unhappy about
the split, which document should one file a bug 
report on?

There were some "commitments" made when issues were
closed (for example, the commitment to maintain
the author-only view of the specification, presumably
also as a W3C edition?). Can issues be re-opened
if those commitments aren't followed?

Is the previous policy of allowing new drafts
to be published as long as there are three independent 
contributors still part of the working
group decision policy? 

What is the decision process is for abandoning
a document or moving it somewhere else once it's 
past FPWD. Is the default that all documents that
pass FPWD will have the presumption of making it
through last call if "change proposals" aren't
completed. Would "drop entire document" be an
acceptable "change proposal"? (That is, if we
publish Microdata as a FPWD, will it by default
be published as a PR?)

The decision policy should probably also cover 
the questions around whether work is or isn't in
scope of the working group charter. It seems like
the process is that after discussion, if there
isn't a resolution, the chairs will make a 
"chairs decision" on the interpretation of the

Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 01:55:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC