This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
It should be clarified what materials (if any) are considered on top of the actual Change Proposals, and the survey answers. In particular, it would be good if there was a way to comment on survey feedback in a way it'll be considered by the chairs.
I am concerned that if we provide a mechanism for people to comment on survey feedback, that we will get a request for people to have an opportunity to comment on comments on survey feedback. My preference is that we document that we provide adequate opportunity for discussion prior to a survey (and perhaps even cite that we have and will establish and enforce cutoffs for bugs and issues well before any deadline in order to enable such discussion), and that the survey is intended as a last opportunity for people to provide feedback. Those with a strong interest in a particular issue are encouraged to check back often during the period a survey is open. My preference is that the only exception I that we consider is to provide an opportunity for people to object to using the survey as a means for introducing substantially new information, particularly when such information was available well in advance and could not have been reasonably expected to have been introduced.
Well. The reason I raised this is because I have the impression that survey feedback caused a bad decision, although the feedback *on that feedback* was available at that time. If that feedback on the survey feedback was not considered (and that's my understanding), doesn't it qualify as "new information"?
(In reply to comment #2) > Well. The reason I raised this is because I have the impression that survey > feedback caused a bad decision, although the feedback *on that feedback* was > available at that time. Bad decisions are ones that have been overturned. > If that feedback on the survey feedback was not considered (and that's my > understanding), doesn't it qualify as "new information"? Could very well be. The would be decided on a case by case basis. See http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11447#c3 for a recommendation on how to proceed in such a case.
Clarified; but I did not expand the set of places the Chairs guarantee to look, just documented it. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html.diff?r1=1.19&r2=1.20&f=h
(In reply to comment #4) > Clarified; but I did not expand the set of places the Chairs guarantee to look, > just documented it. > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html.diff?r1=1.19&r2=1.20&f=h -1 The WG has an issue tracker, which automatically collects information submitted to the official discussion mailing list. It really should be used.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Clarified; but I did not expand the set of places the Chairs guarantee to look, > > just documented it. > > > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html.diff?r1=1.19&r2=1.20&f=h > > -1 > > The WG has an issue tracker, which automatically collects information submitted > to the official discussion mailing list. It really should be used. This bug says to "clarify what materials are considered when chairs look at survey results". That's what I did. If you now want the policy to change so that the chairs look at additional materials, please file a separate bug.
(In reply to comment #5) > It really should be used. Those that produce Change Proposals and Objections are welcome to use this resource for producing clear and crisp proposals and objections.