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: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:36:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4A8416D7.1010107@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Shelley Powers wrote:
> 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.

Here is my understanding.

The current status of issue 32 is OPEN.

   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32

An editor's draft restoring summary is available for discussion:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/pf-summary/spec.html

The draft at the above link has no special status.  It has been 
committed and is available for review.  It contains the following 
disclaimer (as do Ian's and Manu's drafts):

   The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working
   Draft does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C
   HTML working group endorse the contents of the specification.
   Indeed, for any section of the specification, one can usually
   find many members of the working group or of the W3C as a whole
   who object strongly to the current text, the existence of the
   section at all, or the idea that the working group should even
   spend time discussing the concept of that section.

I'll add that the draft above is *NOT* a W3C Working Draft.  Nor has it 
even been submitted to the group for consideration as such.

I will have more to say after the current poll completes.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 13:37:05 UTC

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