Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Summary and Action Items: WGT Conf Call (26 March 2009)

[Thomas Roessler <tlr@xxxxxx>]

The way the W3C process deals with this is twofold:

1. There is chair discretion in whether or not an issue is re-opened,  
*if* there is new information.
2. Participants can demand the record of the meeting to show that a  
previously-closed issue is being reopened.
There is a preferende to *not* reopen issues, but when needed, it can  
be done.  I'd suggest a somewhat similar approach here.
Cheers,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@xxxxxx>







On 28 Mar 2009, at 22:41, Avri Doria wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:19 +0000, Caroline Greer wrote:
> > and agree to not re-open previously closed issues.
> hi,
>
> On this I suggest a bit of complexity.
>
> Anyone, especially someone new to the effort, should be able to re- 
> open
> an 'closed issue' if they have new information on that issue or a
> perspective that was not taken into account previously.
>
> One of the things I think is importnat in a working group is that all
> points of view are:
> - heard
> - understood
> - considered
>
> and then have a chance to contribute a separate statement in the
> appendix of a document.
>
> To disallow someone to bring up a new aspect to an issue that has
> already been discussed also means that the discussion has to wait  
> until
> the public comment period.  Doing this may end up negating much of the
> work already done.
>
> It will be clear in most cases when someone is just rehashing and the
> chair can call the discussion at that point.  and of course someone  
> who
> did this constantly, i.e. say 'i have a new fact or perspective and  
> thus
> need to go back,' would then be a problem of another sort.
>
> I would recommend that someone who comes in late with a viewpoint they
> don't consider as having gotten a hearing should write it up and  
> submit
> it to the list.  at that point, people can decide if it is new.
>
> a.