Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Hello HTML WG Chairs,
I think the decision process for our first formal resolution has not
turned out so well. Counting every "no" vote as a Formal Objection means
that to register any kind of dissent, one must automatically lie across
the metaphorical railroad tracks, requiring either work stoppage or
escalation of the dispute. I think this creates two problems:
1) People who disagree with the majority feel pressured not to vote
"no", since it would potentially impede the progress of the group. In a
straw poll, people should feel free to vote their conscience without
worrying they may put the work of the group at risk.
This isn't a straw poll.
People who just want to express disagreement
without formally objecting are supposed to just express that
disagreement in email or in the rationale field and abstain.
2) People who do want to register their disagreement automatically
escalate it to the most serious level just by virtue of their "no" vote.
For example, I don't think the voter who said he liked the name "HTML
5.01" better than "HTML 5" necessarily would have chosen to escalate it
to the Director after the vote.
True, he probably didn't understand what I meant the "no" option
to mean when he chose it. That makes for a little extra "paperwork,"
but it doesn't seriously impact things.
In many W3C Working Groups, resolutions often carry just by majority
vote, with dissentors given the opportunity to lodge a Formal Objection
afterwards if they still strongly disagree. Often the Formal Objection
is only done at LC time so there is plenty time to work things out
before the FO has to be recorded for the Director. I suggest the chairs
adopt this process for future WG decisions.
I expect to give participants various chances to withdraw their
objections.
Furthermore, ordinary
comments on a Working Draft or Last Call draft are not normally
automatically considered as Formal Objections, even if the resolution is
"Disagree". Generally the disputant has to explicitly say it is a Formal
Objection.
I propose that for future resolutions, "no" votes be treated only as
ordinary statements of disagreement. Only if the dissentor explicitly
chooses to escalate his dissent to a Formal Objection should it be
treated as such.
WBS doesn't currently support that, as far as I know. Perhaps
I'll look into getting it enhanced.
This way, Formal Objections will be the rare special
appeals they were meant to be and not commonplace features of the
decision process.
Regards,
Maciej
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
