8893 2010-02-07 06:23:09 +0000 Clarify how Change Proposals get reviewed and what happens to Change Proposals that do not meet requirements 2010-07-28 03:25:58 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG working group Decision Policy unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mjs dave.null julian.reschke lmm mike mjs Paul.Cotton rubys public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 31609 0 mjs 2010-02-07 06:23:09 +0000 Larry Masinter said: "In the escalation process, the chairs review change proposals, and ask for resubmission if they believe the change proposal doesn't meet the requirements for a change proposal. It's not clear how many times this can happen or whether it affects the deadline." I replied: "Carification: When we give review feedback of this kind it is as a courtesy to the submitter of the Change Proposal. We will try to do it, but it's not mandatory for us to do it, or for anyone to take our suggestions. Once a Change Proposal is submitted, there is no firm deadline. The author of the Change Proposal can make revisions up until the time we are ready to call for consensus, issue a poll, or otherwise drive to a decision. Others can also submit additional Change Proposals. Thus, suggesting improvements can happen any number of times and does not affect any deadlines. Possible Policy Update: We think the Decision Policy should state that Change Proposals that do not meet the formal requirements for a Change Proposal will fail; but Change Proposal authors will be given ample opportunity to make revisions and resolve any problems." 32795 1 lmm 2010-03-03 16:13:55 +0000 I wasn't sure how the process outlined above applied to the URL change proposal, which was rejected as not "proper" (and issue CLOSED) because it had been submitted in two messages instead of one, and the rationale contained a pointer to the original bug report with rationale rather than copying the rationale inline. What are the "formal requirements" for a change proposal anyway? What's formal about them? Why can't people poll or opinions be solicited for a change proposal that the proposer believes are explicit enough? 33900 2 mjs 2010-03-25 04:27:33 +0000 Hi Larry, the thing that is "formal" about them is that the chairs don't try to judge the goodness of the change or the quality of the rationale. Merely that all the required components are present, and that some sort of plausible rationale is provided actually argues for each aspect of the proposal. In other words, we are not judging the full merits of the proposal, only that it meets the minimum bar to be taken up and reviewed by the WG. 35410 3 mjs 2010-05-04 17:07:14 +0000 Strawman resolution: Document that the chairs may give comments on Change Proposals to identify ways in which they do not meet the requirements for a Change Proposal (i.e. having all the needed parts, having sufficient detail in the Details section, and having at least minimal rationale for every individual change proposed). 37123 4 mjs 2010-07-28 03:25:58 +0000 Addressed in: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html.diff?r1=1.14&r2=1.15&f=h (See also the newly added flowchart image.)