(In reply to comment #0)
> 
> So a non-working group member can ask that their bug be escalated. However, if
> a working group member does not write a change proposal and champion said
> issue, the issue is closed. 

There is a saying in the legal profession that hard cases make for bad laws.

I think this is one of the cases.

I believe that the scenario that is being described here is that somebody outside of the working group reports a bug, and (a) nobody within the working group takes enough interest in the bug to propose a resolution in the form of a change proposal, (b) the original person who reported the bug is willing to write a change proposal, (c) said individual is not willing to agree to the W3C Patent Policy or otherwise is not willing to follow the process that has been put into place ensuring that the W3C has sufficient rights to incorporate said proposal, and (d) said individual is willing to accept the decision of the very same group on the disposition of the proposal.

Yes, in such a case the outcome would be that the only outcome of raising the issue would be to confirm that nobody in the working group has an active interest in addressing the problem reported, but even then, the issue would be closed without prejudice.

Relaxing any of (a), (b), (c), or (d) results in a different outcome.

(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > 
> > So a non-working group member can ask that their bug be escalated. However, if
> > a working group member does not write a change proposal and champion said
> > issue, the issue is closed. 
> 
> There is a saying in the legal profession that hard cases make for bad laws.
> 
> I think this is one of the cases.
> 
> I believe that the scenario that is being described here is that somebody
> outside of the working group reports a bug, and (a) nobody within the working
> group takes enough interest in the bug to propose a resolution in the form of a
> change proposal, (b) the original person who reported the bug is willing to
> write a change proposal, (c) said individual is not willing to agree to the W3C
> Patent Policy or otherwise is not willing to follow the process that has been
> put into place ensuring that the W3C has sufficient rights to incorporate said
> proposal, and (d) said individual is willing to accept the decision of the very
> same group on the disposition of the proposal.
> 
> Yes, in such a case the outcome would be that the only outcome of raising the
> issue would be to confirm that nobody in the working group has an active
> interest in addressing the problem reported, but even then, the issue would be
> closed without prejudice.
> 
> Relaxing any of (a), (b), (c), or (d) results in a different outcome.

Thanks Sam. 

In the policy or boiler plate bug message it might be good to let non-working group members know that they MUST join the group to affect change if they can't get someone  who is a member to write a change proposal on their behalf. Many people outside of the group won't be aware of the fact that they have to join.

(In reply to comment #2)

> In the policy or boiler plate bug message it might be good to let non-working
> group members know that they MUST join the group to affect change if they can't
> get someone  who is a member to write a change proposal on their behalf. Many
> people outside of the group won't be aware of the fact that they have to join.

Maybe this isn't the case? Maybe non-members don't have to join?

One related post on the comment list [1] seems to indicate that non-members writing change proposals isn't encouraged. But another post to the comment list [2] seems to indicate that non-members writing change proposals is okay according to the policy. 

It would be good clarify in the policy non-member procedure if it differs from members. Many people may not want to join the group but will want to pursue/escalate an issue.

Thanks,
Laura

[1] Philippe Le Hegaret, 25 Aug 2010: 

> It's one thing to file bugs against a specification and expressed
> whether or not you agree with the decision of the group. It's an other
> to contribute to the group to the point of writing change proposals.
> 
> Shelley, I understand your reluctance to be part of the group but, if
> you're going to be involved with it, I think you should be part of it.
> We won't (and can't anyway) force you to read every single email on
> public-html and you might in fact only interact around your change
> proposals. But starting to write change proposals without being part of
> the group doesn't make sense to me"

Source: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Aug/0031.html

[2] Shelley Powers, September 10, 2010:

>   I'm not sure if this is a new addition to the decision process, or it 
> was missed, but it was pointed out to me today that according to the 
> HTML WG Decision Process, people who aren't members of the HTML WG may 
> submit change proposals[1]:
>
> "Complete Change Proposals should be recorded somewhere in W3C space 
> (wiki, dev.w3.org, archived mailing list) and the Working Group should 
> be notified by email. If the author of the Change Proposal is not a 
> member of the Working Group, then he or she should agree to the W3C 
> Patent Policy and grant a non-exclusive copyright assignment as required 
> for invited experts."
>
> I am willing to agree to the patent policy and grant copyright, and will 
> so note at the bottom of all change proposals. I will use the text of 
> the existing Patent Policy and copyright grant, only modifying it to 
> remove references to Invited Expert.
>
> I will embed the text of the proposal, including the patent and 
> copyright notices, in an email to the HTML WG comments email list, and 
> see if I can prevail on an existing member of the HTML WG to send an 
> email to the HTML WG email list, notifying the group of the proposal.
>
> Based on requests from co-chairs, or comments from HTML WG members, and 
> members of the general public in the HTML WG comments email list, I will 
> make necessary modifications to the proposal, and resend.
>
> It may be simpler for me to be a member, but I will not agree to joining 
> in a probationary state, or to any restrictions not applicable to other 
> members of the HTML WG. Instead, I'm offering a compromise, as noted in 
> this email.
...
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Source: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Sep/0004.html

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> 
> > In the policy or boiler plate bug message it might be good to let non-working
> > group members know that they MUST join the group to affect change if they can't
> > get someone  who is a member to write a change proposal on their behalf. Many
> > people outside of the group won't be aware of the fact that they have to join.
> 
> Maybe this isn't the case? Maybe non-members don't have to join?
> 
> One related post on the comment list [1] seems to indicate that non-members
> writing change proposals isn't encouraged. But another post to the comment list
> [2] seems to indicate that non-members writing change proposals is okay
> according to the policy. 
> 
> It would be good clarify in the policy non-member procedure if it differs from
> members. Many people may not want to join the group but will want to
> pursue/escalate an issue.

I agree this needs to be clarified.

My perspective is that what is stated in the Decision Policy is a few necessary conditions, but meeting those alone are not sufficient.  There are many reasons why a Change Proposal is not accepted, and IP considerations are but one of them.

Regarding the email that you quoted, I am in an active, private discussion with Shelley, and will not comment further until that is resolved.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ListGuidelines

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > 
> > > In the policy or boiler plate bug message it might be good to let non-working
> > > group members know that they MUST join the group to affect change if they can't
> > > get someone  who is a member to write a change proposal on their behalf. Many
> > > people outside of the group won't be aware of the fact that they have to join.
> > 
> > Maybe this isn't the case? Maybe non-members don't have to join?
> > 
> > One related post on the comment list [1] seems to indicate that non-members
> > writing change proposals isn't encouraged. But another post to the comment list
> > [2] seems to indicate that non-members writing change proposals is okay
> > according to the policy. 
> > 
> > It would be good clarify in the policy non-member procedure if it differs from
> > members. Many people may not want to join the group but will want to
> > pursue/escalate an issue.
> 
> I agree this needs to be clarified.
> 
> My perspective is that what is stated in the Decision Policy is a few necessary
> conditions, but meeting those alone are not sufficient.  There are many reasons
> why a Change Proposal is not accepted, and IP considerations are but one of
> them.
> 
> Regarding the email that you quoted, I am in an active, private discussion with
> Shelley, and will not comment further until that is resolved.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ListGuidelines

No, we have had our say.

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > 
> > > In the policy or boiler plate bug message it might be good to let non-working
> > > group members know that they MUST join the group to affect change if they can't
> > > get someone  who is a member to write a change proposal on their behalf. Many
> > > people outside of the group won't be aware of the fact that they have to join.
> > 
> > Maybe this isn't the case? Maybe non-members don't have to join?
> > 
> > One related post on the comment list [1] seems to indicate that non-members
> > writing change proposals isn't encouraged. But another post to the comment list
> > [2] seems to indicate that non-members writing change proposals is okay
> > according to the policy. 
> > 
> > It would be good clarify in the policy non-member procedure if it differs from
> > members. Many people may not want to join the group but will want to
> > pursue/escalate an issue.
> 
> I agree this needs to be clarified.
> 
> My perspective is that what is stated in the Decision Policy is a few necessary
> conditions, but meeting those alone are not sufficient.  There are many reasons
> why a Change Proposal is not accepted, and IP considerations are but one of
> them.
> 
> Regarding the email that you quoted, I am in an active, private discussion with
> Shelley, and will not comment further until that is resolved.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ListGuidelines

Procedures governing this group should be arrived at publicly, and applied consistently. 

If the section pointed out is not sufficient, it needs to be amended until sufficient. Or it needs to be removed, and a condition of membership formally defined. 

You can't change the rules, saying they're acceptable for one person, but not another. Such inconsistency causes confusion, and gives an appearance of bias.

(In reply to comment #6)
> If the section pointed out is not sufficient, it needs to be amended until
> sufficient. Or it needs to be removed, and a condition of membership formally
> defined. 
> 
> You can't change the rules, saying they're acceptable for one person, but not
> another. Such inconsistency causes confusion, and gives an appearance of bias.

Bias such as the following

http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100913#l-689

Where all I have to do is comment on a bug and the W3C team rep decides to change the rules of what gets posted to HTML-WG. 

This following the W3C team rep changing the rules of HTML WG team membership. 

This following the W3C team rep changing the rules about who could post to the HTML WG, following my postings to this email.

Do we see a trend here? 

Rules that are changed based on bias, that single out individuals aren't rules -- their barriers to participation.

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > If the section pointed out is not sufficient, it needs to be amended until
> > sufficient. Or it needs to be removed, and a condition of membership formally
> > defined. 
> > 
> > You can't change the rules, saying they're acceptable for one person, but not
> > another. Such inconsistency causes confusion, and gives an appearance of bias.
> 
> Bias such as the following
> 
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100913#l-689
> 
> Where all I have to do is comment on a bug and the W3C team rep decides to
> change the rules of what gets posted to HTML-WG. 
> 
> This following the W3C team rep changing the rules of HTML WG team membership. 
> 
> This following the W3C team rep changing the rules about who could post to the
> HTML WG, following my postings to this email.
> 
> Do we see a trend here? 
> 
> Rules that are changed based on bias, that single out individuals aren't rules
> -- their barriers to participation.

Make that:

they are barriers to participation

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > If the section pointed out is not sufficient, it needs to be amended until
> > sufficient. Or it needs to be removed, and a condition of membership formally
> > defined. 
> > 
> > You can't change the rules, saying they're acceptable for one person, but not
> > another. Such inconsistency causes confusion, and gives an appearance of bias.
> 
> Bias such as the following
> 
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100913#l-689

I do not see how the bug that that IRC log points to is an indication of bias.  Please refrain from posting topics unrelated to the original bug reported here. 

> Where all I have to do is comment on a bug and the W3C team rep decides to
> change the rules of what gets posted to HTML-WG. 
> 
> This following the W3C team rep changing the rules of HTML WG team membership. 
> 
> This following the W3C team rep changing the rules about who could post to the
> HTML WG, following my postings to this email.

Post-hoc ergo Proper-hoc is a fallacy[1].  In this case, it was this very bug that prompted the effort that led to the DiscussionGuidelines[2] being posted.

> Do we see a trend here? 

Not the one that you are implying.  The only trend here is that Laura files a bug, participates constructively in its resolution, and results are being posted.  I'll also state that it is my turn to chair the telecon this week, and this will also be a topic there.  Doing so will be neither unusual or unexpected -- we have been doing this each and every week for years now.

> Rules that are changed based on bias, that single out individuals aren't rules
> -- they are barriers to participation.

First, the rules have not changed, they simply have been published[3].

Second, nobody has been singled out.  In my 1.75 years as co-chair, I can attest to the fact that there are plenty of people who have been counseled on their participation.  And, no, I have no intention of "outing" them.

And, finally, yes -- they are barriers to participation.  People who consistently can not follow these simple rules are not welcome to participate in this effort.  Period. 

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  If you have concerns with the W3C team rep, I suggest that you contact either the Interaction Domain Leader or the Chief Operating Officer.  You can find their contact information on the People section of the W3C web site[4].  Do NOT repeat these points again here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0136.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/People/all

(In reply to comment #9)

> First, the rules have not changed, they simply have been published[3].
> 
> Second, nobody has been singled out.  In my 1.75 years as co-chair, I can
> attest to the fact that there are plenty of people who have been counseled on
> their participation.  And, no, I have no intention of "outing" them.
> 
> And, finally, yes -- they are barriers to participation.  People who
> consistently can not follow these simple rules are not welcome to participate
> in this effort.  Period. 
> 
> - Sam Ruby

Fine.

Does the Decision Process not say non-members can file a change proposal?

Is there a rule, in the HTML WG or the W3C that states a person can only join in a probationary state?

(In reply to comment #9)

Hi Sam,

> The only trend here is that Laura files a
> bug, participates constructively in its resolution, and results are 
> being posted.

Thanks to Maciej for calling the working group's attention [1] to the new Discussion Guidelines [2]. I hope group benefits from them. 

But I don't see how the Discussion Guidelines helps to directly solve this bug. The new Discussion Guidelines are ancillary to this bug.

This bug is about clarifying procedure and recourse for non-working group members to follow when they are unsatisfied with a bug resolution. There will be more that one person wanting to know the answer to the following questions: 

* What is the proper procedure for non-members to follow if they are unsatisfied with a bug resolution? 
* How does the procedure for non-members differ from members?
* Are non-members allowed to write change proposals? 
* Are non-members required to join the working group for their proposal to be considered? 

The decision policy does state: 

1. "A commentor without tracker access should apply the TrackerRequest keyword, and should suggest a title and text for the tracker issue. Team contacts or other volunteers with access will move TrackerRequest issues into the tracker." 

2. "Complete Change Proposals should be recorded somewhere in W3C space (wiki, dev.w3.org, archived mailing list) and the Working Group should be notified by email. If the author of the Change Proposal is not a member of the Working Group, then he or she should agree to the W3C Patent Policy and grant a non-exclusive copyright assignment as required for invited experts."

Number two should be explained step-by-step if non-members are indeed allowed to write Change Proposals. Some things that are unclear (there are probably more):

* Where should non-member record their change proposal if they don't have access to the wiki or dev.w3.org.? Which is the preferred list to send the CP?
* How does a non-member agree to the W3C Patent Policy? Is there another form that they can complete?

Thanks,
Laura

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0136.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> 
> > First, the rules have not changed, they simply have been published[3].
> > 
> > Second, nobody has been singled out.  In my 1.75 years as co-chair, I can
> > attest to the fact that there are plenty of people who have been counseled on
> > their participation.  And, no, I have no intention of "outing" them.
> > 
> > And, finally, yes -- they are barriers to participation.  People who
> > consistently can not follow these simple rules are not welcome to participate
> > in this effort.  Period. 
> > 
> > - Sam Ruby
> 
> Fine.
> 
> Does the Decision Process not say non-members can file a change proposal?

It does not state that.  In fact, it states the opposite, and gives some, but not all, of the conditions for doing so.  I doubt that the conditions can ever be enumerated exhaustively, but for now feel free to treat as a working assumption that agreeing to the W3C Patent Policy and granting a non-exclusive copyright assignment and agreeing to the DiscussionGuidelines are a minimum set of requirements.  

> Is there a rule, in the HTML WG or the W3C that states a person can only join
> in a probationary state?

It is my hope that the DiscussionGuidelines clarify this.  Everybody is on probation.  Those that consistently can not follow these guidelines are not welcome here.

(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> 
> Hi Sam,
> 
> > The only trend here is that Laura files a
> > bug, participates constructively in its resolution, and results are 
> > being posted.
> 
> Thanks to Maciej for calling the working group's attention [1] to the new
> Discussion Guidelines [2]. I hope group benefits from them. 
> 
> But I don't see how the Discussion Guidelines helps to directly solve this bug.
> The new Discussion Guidelines are ancillary to this bug.
> 
> This bug is about clarifying procedure and recourse for non-working group
> members to follow when they are unsatisfied with a bug resolution. There will
> be more that one person wanting to know the answer to the following questions: 
> 
> * What is the proper procedure for non-members to follow if they are
> unsatisfied with a bug resolution?

I said early in this thread that hard cases make for bad laws.  The procedure will depend on what reason is given for the person to remain a non-member.

The reason why the Discussion Guidelines are not ancillary to this bug is very simple: if the reason given turns out to be an unwillingness to agree to these guidelines, then the answer is very simple: there is no procedure for such individuals (if any) to follow as they simply are not welcome here.

> * How does the procedure for non-members differ from members?

What makes this hard is that we encourage discussion to occur on public-html, and we don't allow non-members to post on public-html.  We would need to understand the reason why this split is necessary before we find a way to enable this sub-optimal arrangement.  Put another way, I am not interested in pursuing a hypothetical discussion and create complicated procedures to handle a case that may or may not ever occur.  If somebody wishes to participate, we encourage them to join.  If they can not or will not, we want to know why.  After we know why, we will take it from there.

> * Are non-members allowed to write change proposals? 

The simple answer is yes, but this is not a simple question.  There will be conditions that will be placed over and above the conditions placed on members.  What those conditions will be will depend on the reason why the person is unwilling to become a member in the first place.

> * Are non-members required to join the working group for their proposal to be
> considered? 

Again, the simple answer is no; and again the conditions which will be placed on non-members will depend entirely on the reason why the person is unwilling or unable to become a member.

(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > (In reply to comment #9)
> > 
> > > First, the rules have not changed, they simply have been published[3].
> > > 
> > > Second, nobody has been singled out.  In my 1.75 years as co-chair, I can
> > > attest to the fact that there are plenty of people who have been counseled on
> > > their participation.  And, no, I have no intention of "outing" them.
> > > 
> > > And, finally, yes -- they are barriers to participation.  People who
> > > consistently can not follow these simple rules are not welcome to participate
> > > in this effort.  Period. 
> > > 
> > > - Sam Ruby
> > 
> > Fine.
> > 
> > Does the Decision Process not say non-members can file a change proposal?
> 
> It does not state that.  In fact, it states the opposite, and gives some, but
> not all, of the conditions for doing so.  I doubt that the conditions can ever
> be enumerated exhaustively, but for now feel free to treat as a working
> assumption that agreeing to the W3C Patent Policy and granting a non-exclusive
> copyright assignment and agreeing to the DiscussionGuidelines are a minimum set
> of requirements.  

Sorry that was my use of words. I meant to say that the Decision Process states that non-members can file a change proposal, but ended up with a twisted sentence. 

> 
> > Is there a rule, in the HTML WG or the W3C that states a person can only join
> > in a probationary state?
> 
> It is my hope that the DiscussionGuidelines clarify this.  Everybody is on
> probation.  Those that consistently can not follow these guidelines are not
> welcome here.


I don't find anything wrong with the Discussion Guidelines. It helps to have a consistent set of rules, and known procedures in place. 

Just a suggestion: I wouldn't use the word probation. It has negative connotation.

(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > (In reply to comment #9)
> > 
> > Hi Sam,
> > 
> > > The only trend here is that Laura files a
> > > bug, participates constructively in its resolution, and results are 
> > > being posted.
> > 
> > Thanks to Maciej for calling the working group's attention [1] to the new
> > Discussion Guidelines [2]. I hope group benefits from them. 
> > 
> > But I don't see how the Discussion Guidelines helps to directly solve this bug.
> > The new Discussion Guidelines are ancillary to this bug.
> > 
> > This bug is about clarifying procedure and recourse for non-working group
> > members to follow when they are unsatisfied with a bug resolution. There will
> > be more that one person wanting to know the answer to the following questions: 
> > 
> > * What is the proper procedure for non-members to follow if they are
> > unsatisfied with a bug resolution?
> 
> I said early in this thread that hard cases make for bad laws.  The procedure
> will depend on what reason is given for the person to remain a non-member.
> 
> The reason why the Discussion Guidelines are not ancillary to this bug is very
> simple: if the reason given turns out to be an unwillingness to agree to these
> guidelines, then the answer is very simple: there is no procedure for such
> individuals (if any) to follow as they simply are not welcome here.
> 
> > * How does the procedure for non-members differ from members?
> 
> What makes this hard is that we encourage discussion to occur on public-html,
> and we don't allow non-members to post on public-html.  We would need to
> understand the reason why this split is necessary before we find a way to
> enable this sub-optimal arrangement.  Put another way, I am not interested in
> pursuing a hypothetical discussion and create complicated procedures to handle
> a case that may or may not ever occur.  If somebody wishes to participate, we
> encourage them to join.  If they can not or will not, we want to know why. 
> After we know why, we will take it from there.
> 
> > * Are non-members allowed to write change proposals? 
> 
> The simple answer is yes, but this is not a simple question.  There will be
> conditions that will be placed over and above the conditions placed on members.
>  What those conditions will be will depend on the reason why the person is
> unwilling to become a member in the first place.
> 

There's nothing in the Decision Process that demands a person must explain why they don't want to become a member. (Or is there, and I missed it?)

There's also nothing in any of the documentation linked in this thread that mentions "extra conditions". What might these be?

> > * Are non-members required to join the working group for their proposal to be
> > considered? 
> 
> Again, the simple answer is no; and again the conditions which will be placed
> on non-members will depend entirely on the reason why the person is unwilling
> or unable to become a member.

Again, not part of any documented rules or regs for the group, or within any defined process or procedure.

(In reply to comment #15)
> > > * Are non-members allowed to write change proposals? 
> > 
> > The simple answer is yes, but this is not a simple question.  There will be
> > conditions that will be placed over and above the conditions placed on members.
> >  What those conditions will be will depend on the reason why the person is
> > unwilling to become a member in the first place.
> 
> There's nothing in the Decision Process that demands a person must explain why
> they don't want to become a member. (Or is there, and I missed it?)
> 
> There's also nothing in any of the documentation linked in this thread that
> mentions "extra conditions". What might these be?

As previously stated, and just as an example: if the reason why a person is not a member is that they are unwilling or unable to follow the decision guidelines, then that person is entirely unwelcome here.  Period.

A different reason could conceivably get a different set of conditions, again, all depending on the reason.

If no reason is given, then there is no guarantee that change proposals will be accepted.

(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > > > * Are non-members allowed to write change proposals? 
> > > 
> > > The simple answer is yes, but this is not a simple question.  There will be
> > > conditions that will be placed over and above the conditions placed on members.
> > >  What those conditions will be will depend on the reason why the person is
> > > unwilling to become a member in the first place.
> > 
> > There's nothing in the Decision Process that demands a person must explain why
> > they don't want to become a member. (Or is there, and I missed it?)
> > 
> > There's also nothing in any of the documentation linked in this thread that
> > mentions "extra conditions". What might these be?
> 
> As previously stated, and just as an example: if the reason why a person is not
> a member is that they are unwilling or unable to follow the decision
> guidelines, then that person is entirely unwelcome here.  Period.

That they would have to follow the Decision Process? I think that would be a given. If they weren't interested, the person would then just do Last Call comments, or Formal Objections, instead. 

> 
> A different reason could conceivably get a different set of conditions, again,
> all depending on the reason.
> 
> If no reason is given, then there is no guarantee that change proposals will be
> accepted.

I'm sorry, but that is very vague, and seems arbitrary. It's also not specified in the Decision Process. 

A person cannot be expected to follow rules that aren't explicitly given. And when rules are explicitly given, a person should be able to expect consistency and  adherence to these rules from all parties--including those who set the rules.

(In reply to comment #13)

Hi Sam,

> > * What is the proper procedure for non-members to follow if they are
> > unsatisfied with a bug resolution?
> 
> I said early in this thread that hard cases make for bad laws.  The procedure
> will depend on what reason is given for the person to remain a non-member.

I think I understand...Perhaps adding something like along the lines of the following in policy could work?

"Non-members are encouraged to join the working group so they can fully participate in this process. But extenuating circumstances for not joining the group will be considered by the Chairs on a case-by-case basis."

Then link to the info on how to join the group for the phrase "join the working group" and have an email link to the chairs for the phrase "considered by the Chairs".

This will:

1. Encourage people to join and let them know how to join (nowhere in the policy does it say how to join).
2. Let non-members know if they have extenuating circumstances, the Chairs will listen and the non-member won't be dismissed out of hand. A short and simple statement something like the one above could uncover legitimate reasoning.

> The reason why the Discussion Guidelines are not ancillary to this bug is very
> simple: if the reason given turns out to be an unwillingness to agree to these
> guidelines, then the answer is very simple: there is no procedure for such
> individuals (if any) to follow as they simply are not welcome here.

Maybe have a link to the Discussion Guidelines in the info on how to join? Then all new members will be made aware of the Guidelines and repercussions of not following them.

Laura

(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> 
> Hi Sam,
> 
> > > * What is the proper procedure for non-members to follow if they are
> > > unsatisfied with a bug resolution?
> > 
> > I said early in this thread that hard cases make for bad laws.  The procedure
> > will depend on what reason is given for the person to remain a non-member.
> 
> I think I understand...Perhaps adding something like along the lines of the
> following in policy could work?
> 
> "Non-members are encouraged to join the working group so they can fully
> participate in this process. But extenuating circumstances for not joining the
> group will be considered by the Chairs on a case-by-case basis."
> 
> Then link to the info on how to join the group for the phrase "join the working
> group" and have an email link to the chairs for the phrase "considered by the
> Chairs".

I don't believe we need to specify extenuating circumstances. 

The HTML WG chairs should consider that people wanting to do the extra work required for change proposals are doing so out of interest and wanting to contribute. 

Instead, this implies that anyone who wants to contribute a change proposal, but doesn't want to join the HTML WG, is to be treated with suspicion--having to produce motive, which will then undergo scrutiny for possible nefarious purpose.

Is this really what the HTML WG wants to imply?

 
> 
> This will:
> 
> 1. Encourage people to join and let them know how to join (nowhere in the
> policy does it say how to join).
> 2. Let non-members know if they have extenuating circumstances, the Chairs will
> listen and the non-member won't be dismissed out of hand. A short and simple
> statement something like the one above could uncover legitimate reasoning.
> 
> > The reason why the Discussion Guidelines are not ancillary to this bug is very
> > simple: if the reason given turns out to be an unwillingness to agree to these
> > guidelines, then the answer is very simple: there is no procedure for such
> > individuals (if any) to follow as they simply are not welcome here.
> 
> Maybe have a link to the Discussion Guidelines in the info on how to join? Then
> all new members will be made aware of the Guidelines and repercussions of not
> following them.
> 
> Laura

(In reply to comment #17)
> > 
> > As previously stated, and just as an example: if the reason why a person is not
> > a member is that they are unwilling or unable to follow the decision
> > guidelines, then that person is entirely unwelcome here.  Period.
> 
> That they would have to follow the Decision Process?

Typo (thinko?) on my part.  I meant Discussion Guidelines, not Decision Policy.

- Sam Ruby

(In reply to comment #18)
> 
> I think I understand...Perhaps adding something like along the lines of the
> following in policy could work?
> 
> "Non-members are encouraged to join the working group so they can fully
> participate in this process. But extenuating circumstances for not joining the
> group will be considered by the Chairs on a case-by-case basis."
> 
> Then link to the info on how to join the group for the phrase "join the working
> group" and have an email link to the chairs for the phrase "considered by the
> Chairs".

+1.

(In reply to comment #19)

Hi Shelley,

> I don't believe we need to specify extenuating circumstances. 
> 
> The HTML WG chairs should consider that people wanting to do the extra work
> required for change proposals are doing so out of interest and wanting to
> contribute. 

That would be a good perspective.

> Instead, this implies that anyone who wants to contribute a change proposal,
> but doesn't want to join the HTML WG, is to be treated with suspicion--having
> to produce motive, which will then undergo scrutiny for possible nefarious
> purpose.
> 
> Is this really what the HTML WG wants to imply?

I don't think so. 

Do you have better suggested text for the policy to fix this bug?

Thanks,
Laura

(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> 
> Hi Shelley,
> 
> > I don't believe we need to specify extenuating circumstances. 
> > 
> > The HTML WG chairs should consider that people wanting to do the extra work
> > required for change proposals are doing so out of interest and wanting to
> > contribute. 
> 
> That would be a good perspective.
> 
> > Instead, this implies that anyone who wants to contribute a change proposal,
> > but doesn't want to join the HTML WG, is to be treated with suspicion--having
> > to produce motive, which will then undergo scrutiny for possible nefarious
> > purpose.
> > 
> > Is this really what the HTML WG wants to imply?
> 
> I don't think so. 
> 
> Do you have better suggested text for the policy to fix this bug?
> 
> Thanks,
> Laura

None, I don't think there needs to be anything else. Not when it comes to change proposals.

There really is no discussion related to these in the HTML WG email lists, because these are proposals, which then go to survey. That you're complying with the Decision Process is a given because you're submitting proposals.

If there's any discussion in the HTML WG Comments email list, I'm assuming that the same discussion rules apply to that email list as apply to all email lists in the W3C. 

There was discussion about the first Decision Process decisions, because there was a lot of confusion about how the decisions were worded. But several people participated in this, and the discussion led to clarifications and more caution in follow up decisions. 

There was an amazing amount of discussion related to the longdesc attribute removal, but I didn't get the impressing that any of this was "bad", or to be discouraged. And I didn't particpate. 

You don't quibble over the color of house paint when you don't own a house. We're discussing rules that don't apply to a non-member filing a change proposal. Non-members _can't_ send email to the HTML WG email list. We can't participate in the surveys.

Related bug where resolving this bug may be helpful:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10838#c11
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10838#c12

Added Laura's suggested language:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html.diff?r1=1.20&r2=1.21&f=h