Re: review process [was: identify...]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 	Issue Disposition Process -- W3C Last Call
> 	http://www.w3.org/2000/02/procdia/
> 
> Does that make the process clearer to anybody?

No clearer than it always has been, although the diagram (thanks!) is
very well done:)

> > But... here's one view (especially the last paragraph):
> > 
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1997May/0115.html
> 
> Yes, and that's a position that the W3C membership took exception
> to; they objected to the use of voting to decide technical issues
> in W3C working groups. But the WG chairs responded that they find
> it essential in some cases. The resulting compromise is that WG
> chairs can put a matter to a vote and move on if they feel they've
> done all they can to try to reach consensus, but this is an
> exceptional case and they have to note it when they go to the next
> step; i.e. they have to "recorded in appropriate documents
> alongside those of the majority." i.e. they have to escalate it.

The disconnect between this explanation and the diagram (in fact, why
the diagram is both unintentionally revealing and disingenuous) is in
the identification of the "minority opinion" that perforce has to be
recorded.  

*Who* is R?

Consider this: what if a WG *unanimously* rejects R's contention?
Why must they still, uh, escalate?  The missing piece, of course, is
that the eponymous Mr. R is in a position to prevent unanimity - *if*
that's what it takes to negate an, uh, obligation to escalate.  Mr. R 
is definitely not EveryMan.

That's what you don't get.

> Perhaps I've chosen the word 'escalate' poorly; substitute
> 'overrule and document for later review' if you like. I'm still
> looking for a good one-word description of this step.

No, 'escalate' is just fine.

> If the WG thinks I'm filibustering, they need only decide to move
> on and note that my minority opinion is outstanding in their
> request to advance to the next stage. If it's judged that I am
> filibustering, the document will advance to the next stage over my
> objection.

So you say...

> > So, record your objection(s) in an "appropriate document".
> 
> That's the WG's choice, not mine.

Oh?

Haven't you figured out why *your* dissents have to be recorded, but -
say - *mine* don't?

You're still on that horse, Mr. Immaculate.


Arjun

Received on Friday, 18 February 2000 02:42:26 UTC