Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.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
1) Large changes to foundations occasionally creep through into the
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.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org