ISSUE-21: Heartbeat Consensus
Heartbeat Consensus
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Document life cycle (pre 2014 chapter 7, now chapter 6)
- Raised by:
- Steve Zilles
- Opened on:
- 2013-06-10
- Description:
- 15. In 7.4.1b "Heartbeat" Working Draft, bullet 1, Consensus MUST be required to publish a (Heartbeat) Working draft (Steve) and the requirement to Record the Working Group’s decision is to Publish (not Advance) (Ralph) (See also 3. Above)
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: tracker - please use it Re: List of issues on Chapter 7. (from karl@la-grange.net on 2013-06-10)
Related notes:
I am uncomfortable formalizing in the Process that the content
of subsequent Working Drafts may not represent a Group consensus. I
believe that it should be possible to achieve Group consensus on content
even in the presence of disagreement on design by documenting the design
alternatives being considered -- or at a minimum annotating the sections
in question in some fashion. It is a disservice to reviewers outside
the Working Group to present them with heartbeat documents that fail to
fully explain what the Working Group does know about the state of its
work and subsequently to present a Candidate Recommendation that
suddenly resolves everything about which the Working Group was deliberating.
Chaals modified the a requirement for working drafts in draft https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/d97b11a76ac4/tr.html 2013-07-09 to try and clarify this:
"should document the extent of consensus on the content, and outstanding issues on which the Working Group does not have consensus."
Tantek proposed a slightly simplified text to be adopted, based on existing text
Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile, 17 Sep 2013, 16:21:50Display change log
