{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/charter-html/issues/21","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/charter-html/issues/21/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/charter-html/issues/21/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/charter-html/issues/21/events","html_url":"https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/21","id":79115037,"number":21,"title":"[CG Charter] Decision process must be fair, not editor owns the spec","user":{"login":"wcarr","id":10898434,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10898434?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr","html_url":"https://github.com/wcarr","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wcarr/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":11,"created_at":"2015-05-21T18:40:57Z","updated_at":"2015-05-27T23:06:15Z","closed_at":null,"body":"\"If substantial disagreement remains (e.g. the group is divided), the editors will continue with their preference. \".  The editor(s) disagreeing with the rest of the group could be \"substantial disagreement\" or a few friends of the editor challenging anything the editor does not like.  The remedy offered is: \"In extreme cases, someone may choose to fork the spec into a new GitHub repo and move forward with alternative text. \"  That is meaningless if the Editors are several of the 4 primary Web Browser vendors.  You can't simply go off elsewhere without them.  The group needs to be able to make decisions where there is rough consensus and there needs to be a way to ensure that editor's reflect the will of the group.  (rough consensus doesn't mean unanimity, but it does mean the editor cannot override the dominant view of the group).  At the least, the charter should say the editor cannot decide in opposition to the rough consensus of the group and create a way to have a poll or CfC.  \r\n\r\nThe W3C CG optional charter template provides for a vote when disputes cannot be resolved.  That is used in several important CGs and has never been needed because there is a fallback to ensure the editor respects the dominant view.  \r\n\r\nFor a key decision where progress cannot be made without the decision and where a poll shows no dominant view, the editor in consultation with the Chair could decide that by choosing an option with at least some significant support.\r\n\r\nIn a typical CG, its fine to not have a charter or to not have fairness because people can fork.  It's different if its the single Web Platform CG started by W3C itself with the idea that it would be a primary place for incubation for specs headed for WGs.  it should be clear that Editor's don't own the spec and that they must reflect the dominant desire of the group and not just do whatever they like any time there is disagreement.  "},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/charter-html/issues/comments/106105232","html_url":"https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/21#issuecomment-106105232","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/w3c/charter-html/issues/21","id":106105232,"user":{"login":"rubys","id":4815,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4815?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys","html_url":"https://github.com/rubys","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rubys/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-05-27T23:06:15Z","updated_at":"2015-05-27T23:06:15Z","body":"> Is there a good example of something being developed in a CG in a bad way that is widely implemented and that people don't like?\r\n\r\nI'm not sure what you are looking for, but perhaps the Microdata API qualifies?  Once widely (but not universally) implemented, later removed from a number of implementations.  See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=909633 for some links."}}