[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
lauren@textuality.com (Lauren Wood) writes:
>In practice what the Advisory Committee members (one per company) say
>is taken very seriously when the Director (in practice, some subset
>of the W3C staff and the Director) makes the decision. I don't know
>that it's ever happened, but I would expect the if a majority of
>Advisory Committee representatives were against a specification, that
>it would not be made a Recommendation until the problems were fixed.
>W3C process, however, would make it difficult for any spec to get
>that far without the problems becoming obvious. I would expect most
>problems to surface at Last Call if not before, which is two process
>steps before Proposed Recommendation.
This is a good general picture, but there are a few darker pieces worth
noting:
1) Large changes to foundations occasionally creep through into the
CR/PR phases.
2) Forward momentum (perhaps especially of the "can't we just be done
with this already" kind) is awfully hard to stop.
3) I don't know if the W3C expects (like OASIS) 80% of voters to have no
opinion, but there are lots of automatic yes votes. This isn't an
isolated case - ISO is often the same way - but it makes #2 trickier.
At least in theory, the Director choice model may help with these, but
assembling a majority of AC representatives to oppose a spec and get
that message through seems like a difficult task at best.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
