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

Re: Begin discussions for pushing Last Call into 2010

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:30:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4A84076A.4060902@burningbird.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>> Well, one thing different is that a Formal Objection would remove 
>> this discussion out of the group, and give it broader scope.
>
> To be clear about the effect of a Formal Objection: such objections 
> are considered by the Director at the time of a request to advance. 
> For example, when we ask to advance to Candidate Recommendation, the 
> Director will review all Formal Objections raised up until that point. 
> In practice, the Director is advised by the W3C Team and the relevant 
> Activity Lead and Domain Lead in giving such consideration. A Formal 
> Objection does not result in broader review as such, rather it is a 
> right of appeal.
>
> More of the procedural details are given here: 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews> 
>
>
> My experience is that Formal Objections rarely result in the Director 
> reversing the Working Group, if the Working Group can show it gave due 
> consideration to the technical issues raised. Mostly they result in 
> more paperwork for the Chair at transition time.
>
> My guess is that registering a Formal Objection to Canvas would not be 
> a fruitful action, but it is your right to do so.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>
It seems like, from what you are saying, is that a Formal Objection is 
more along the lines of giving a sense of openness within the W3C, but 
the openness is more of an illusion than fact.

I understand about presenting a technical argument, but if all the WG 
has to do is "claim" that it gave due consideration to the  technical 
issues raised, then there is no real option. After all, this WG believes 
it is giving due consideration to the summary attribute, or the 
microdata section, or any number of other areas, where the sole Author 
seems to listen to you, repeats a sequence of "I don't understand" and 
then basically ignores what was said.

At least that's my impression, I can't speak for others.

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 12:30:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC