W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Begin discussions for pushing Last Call into 2010

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:14:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4A835ACD.40900@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Shelley Powers wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 12, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, now I'm confused. According to Dan, I can't bring the issue up 
>>>>> now, unless I have new information. That's cool, I understand. In 
>>>>> which case, the only time I can bring it up, is when a decision has 
>>>>> been made on the HTML 5 specification, which would be following 
>>>>> Last Call. I could then bring it up as a Formal Objection. Even 
>>>>> though I'm a member of the WG now, I wasn't when this decision was 
>>>>> made, so I'm not acting in bad faith to object.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, you're saying I can raise this as an issue now?
>>>>
>>>> I think it's not appropriate to reopen the issue - issues can only 
>>>> be reopened based on new information, once they are closed. But if 
>>>> you want to make a Formal Objection, it would be appropriate to do 
>>>> so now, instead of waiting for Last Call.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Maciej
>>>>
>>> That may be what Sam is suggesting -- to raise the issue now as a 
>>> Formal Objection, not in the Issues database.
>>>
>>> I can do that, but I thought Formal Objections normally came after a 
>>> publication, and the HTML 5 spec is still only a Working Draft. But I 
>>> could see how the vote was _a_ decision, and so a FO now would also 
>>> be appropriate.
>>>
>>> Sam, which do you want me to do? FO or Issues, and when? I want to 
>>> make sure that what I do is done appropriately.
>>
>> Formal Objections are associated with a decision, such as a decision 
>> by the Working Group or by a Chair.  A decision to publish is just one 
>> kind of decision.  As Dan indicated, a decision was made to include 
>> canvas. So, if you wish to go the Formal Objection route on that 
>> particular decision, now would be the time to do it.
>>
>> I plan to ask for objections before Last Call.  As a member of the 
>> working group if you don't have an objection before Last Call, and 
>> then subsequently raise an objection after Last Call, and don't do so 
>> for reasons of information that wasn't known to you at the time I 
>> called for objections, then such an objection would be considered out 
>> of order.
>>
>> I also don't want to waste the committee's time revisiting decisions 
>> which were previously made so however you wish to proceed, I would 
>> strongly encourage you to make your case based on information which 
>> was not known at the time of the decision.
>>
>> I will also say that while I truly did not have an idea how the 
>> current poll would end up (and even though there does appear to be a 
>> trend at the moment, I'm still not certain), I do have a strong 
>> intuition on what the consensus would be on canvas at the moment.
>>
>>> Shelley
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
> Well, one thing different is that a Formal Objection would remove this 
> discussion out of the group, and give it broader scope.
> 
> The current working group may consider that the current charter can be 
> stretched to include Canvas, but I'm not sure others outside of the 
> group would agree. (Though I'm not sure that the working group of today 
> would necessarily vote the same -- the makeup of the group is different. 
> Views about the Canvas element are also different. )
> 
> But I am concerned by what you say about working group members and not 
> being able to raise Formal Objections after Last Call.

I did not say that.  Scroll back and see what I did say.

> That was not my 
> understanding, from previous discussions on this issue. My understanding 
> was that yes, we members of the working group could raise a Formal 
> Objection after last call, if we feel doing so is important enough.

I encourage you to read this:
 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews

The Director is fully aware that this group has decided to include 
Canvas in its drafts.  I am confident that the Director will tell you 
that if you want the group to reconsider you should petition the chairs 
to reopen the decision.  You may feel otherwise, and you are welcome to 
find out.

If you feel that the decision should be reopened, then read this:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen

I can tell you that I am not inclined to reopen the Canvas decision.  If 
pressed, I would start by a simple poll as to whether we should include 
canvas, yes or no, and I am confident how it would turn out.  Even in my 
discussions on canvas with folks whose primary focus is on accessibility 
the impression I have gotten is that making this API accessible will be 
hard but is totally worth doing.

As I mentioned, the Director is fully aware of the decision to include 
canvas.  I invite you to review action-38:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/38

In particular, look at the first note (date 2008-01-10).  At the moment, 
I hold this action (oh, joy), and plan to meet with PLH in about three 
weeks.  It is recognized by all that the charter is a bit out of synch, 
but I will say that there is no enthusiasm for spending the cycles 
needed to reopen chartering discussions.  This is not a matter of a 
rogue Working Group covertly and callously exceeding its mandate, it is 
a matter of a Working Group carefully and deliberately and openly 
addressing a real need.  And that such discussions went all the way to 
the Director.  Nearly two years ago.

> We need to have a definitive, and immutable, decision on this.

The closest you will ever get is a statement that the Formal Objection 
to Canvas at this point, or an objection that isn't raised by a member 
of a committee during the evaluation of consensus but instead is raised 
after a decision that you consented to would not likely get serious 
consideration by the Director.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 00:15:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 1 October 2014 21:47:35 UTC