W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Formal Objection Tracker is missing a FO

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 08:51:58 -0500
Message-ID: <4CA9DBFE.5010602@burningbird.net>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-comments@w3.org" <public-html-comments@w3.org>
  One further point of clarification:

The reason why I will not enter the bug in the Bugzilla database is that 
the path described eventually takes it behind HTML WG membership walls 
(bugs->issues->change proposals->decision). I can participate in the 
bug, but once the item has been made an issue, I can no longer participate.

By submitting Last Call comments here in this email list, as part of the 
broader W3C Last Call process, I can participate, fully, throughout the 
entire process. In addition, the email list is friendlier and may be 
simpler for those outside of the W3C to submit concerns.

The question on all of this that I've had, and continue to have, is how 
can I ensure that a comment here is treated as a Last Call comment. I am 
still waiting on clarification in this regard.

Shelley

On 10/4/10 8:19 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>> This approach would ensure that the FO fits within the W3C procedures.
> Yes.  This is exactly what we are recommending that you do.
>
> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shelley Powers
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 8:55 AM
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Formal Objection Tracker is missing a FO
>
>    What I can do is make a Last Call comment about the references to
> WhatWG documents in the HTML5 spec. If no resolution comes about based
> on that Last Call comment, and the decision is made to proceed with the
> WhatWG references, then I can re-issue the Formal Objection. This
> approach would ensure that the FO fits within the W3C procedures.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Shelley
>
> On 10/4/10 5:47 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 09/30/2010 09:04 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> The existing Formal Objection Tracker[1] is missing a Formal Objection.
>>> I submitted a formal objection in June[2], with follow up emails[3][4].
>>>
>>> Please record these in the Formal Objection Tracker.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Shelley
>>>
>>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html
>>> [2]
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Jun/0005.html
>>>
>>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0277.html
>>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jun/0047.html
>> I am having trouble finding a way to treat this as a formal objection.
>> Per the W3C Process[1] "In the W3C process, an individual may register
>> a Formal Objection to a decision".  This is a problem as I have yet to
>> find any record that indicates that the Working Group has decided to
>> include references to the WHATWG in the specification of HTML5.
>>
>> The path I would recommend is to open a bug report.  If the resolution
>> of that bug report does not resolve your concern, the bug can be
>> marked with a TrackerRequest, and that will[6] result in a decision
>> (even if only a declaration of Amicable Consensus) which CAN be
>> appealed. Furthermore, once an issue is raised, a link to the issue
>> itself in the relevant section(s) can be requested.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> [5]
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews
>> [6] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#basic
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 13:53:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:14:05 GMT