This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
A WG decision about an Issue can be made in several ways as per the Decision Policy. For example, see the Escalation Process at http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html#escalation Unfortunately the Decision Policy does not state how long Editors have to implement such WG decisions in the respective Editor's Draft(s). The Decision Policy should be clear about this requirement since getting a revised document including a WG Decision is often on the critical path to WG members' ability to file new bugs on the changed material.
(In reply to comment #0) > A WG decision about an Issue can be made in several ways as per the Decision > Policy. For example, see the Escalation Process at > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html#escalation > Unfortunately the Decision Policy does not state how long Editors have to > implement such WG decisions in the respective Editor's Draft(s). > The Decision Policy should be clear about this requirement since getting a > revised document including a WG Decision is often on the critical path to WG > members' ability to file new bugs on the changed material. I would like to propose that Editor's have two weeks to implement WG Decisions and that the DP be changed to reflect this implementation period. /paulc
(In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > A WG decision about an Issue can be made in several ways as per the Decision > > Policy. For example, see the Escalation Process at > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html#escalation > > Unfortunately the Decision Policy does not state how long Editors have to > > implement such WG decisions in the respective Editor's Draft(s). > > The Decision Policy should be clear about this requirement since getting a > > revised document including a WG Decision is often on the critical path to WG > > members' ability to file new bugs on the changed material. > > I would like to propose that Editor's have two weeks to implement WG Decisions > and that the DP be changed to reflect this implementation period. > I think the time period should be at least one calendar month. Sometimes decisions are complicated to apply and at times there are many pending at once. Further, editors may well be involved in production of Change Proposals at the same time. The deadline should be designed to be sufficient for the worst case.
(In reply to comment #2) > > Further, editors may well be involved in production of Change Proposals at the > same time. The deadline should be designed to be sufficient for the worst case. At the present time, we have a number of instances that greatly exceed that "worst case": http://intertwingly.net/tmp/wgstatus.html#editor It does not make sense to define a deadline without defining what course of action will be taken should this deadline not be met.
Created attachment 1113 [details] Patch that adds a deadline for WG decisions
(In reply to comment #4) > Created attachment 1113 [details] > Patch that adds a deadline for WG decisions -1 If a proposal does not have enough details to be implemented without investigation, I would expect such an objection to occur no later than the CfC or survey that relates to this proposal. Editors need to be able to devote enough time to W3C activities to process decisions within the 1 month allotted. Should is not strong enough. Notifications are required. Extensions should be asked for well before the dates are missed.
Created attachment 1118 [details] v2 - address Sam's comments