- From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:39:10 -0800
- To: www-archive@w3.org
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Hi Paul, Thanks for the prompt reply! I think you may have misinterpreted my question. I asked: >> What criteria will be used to determine the "newness" of information >> when considering reopening issues in the HTML WG? You replied: > The W3C Process document [1] makes it very clear that it is up to the > WG Chairs to evaluate whether a closed/resolved issue needs to be > re-opened and therefore to determine the “newness” of the information: Yes, indeed it does. That's why I was asking the chairs, and not the working group or some other parties, what criteria you intend to use. >> I'd like to see something like Sam's "three or more independent and >> established participants" rule for reopening issues due to new >> information. If we can't find three or more independent and >> established participants who can say "I would have gone the other way >> on this issue, had I known then what I know now," we shouldn't reopen >> the issue. > > This is an interesting metric but it simply is not how the W3C Process > works. The responsibility for “reopening a Decision” is allocated to > the WG Chairs by the W3C Process. I know the responsibility for reopening decisions rests with the chairs. I was asking the chairs about the mechanism you intend to use, and offering a suggested metric that you could take into account when making such decisions. Thanks, Ted -- Edward O'Connor eoconnor@apple.com
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 21:40:13 UTC