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

RE: Spec license

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:59:19 -0600
To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1234385959.28267.1244.camel@pav.lan>

On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 18:12 -0500, Dailey, David P. wrote:
> Cameron's reminder about the W3C language reminded me of Greg Rosmaita's formal objection back in 2007 on one of the very first votes of the WG:
> some discussion at that time followed:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0613.html
> I don't recall quite how it all ended up, but I see from following the thread forward a bit, since it 
> was a formal objection, the chairs would apparently have acted upon it.  I don't know if 
> the current question is related or not, but it seems as though the issue has arisen in the past and perhaps been resolved.

No, as far as I know, Greg's objection is still outstanding;
it was acknowledged in the 5 May announcement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the chair would apparently have acted
up it"; the only action required by chairs is to report outstanding
dissent when we ask The Director/Membership for a status beyond WD.

"When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered the
legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable,
the group SHOULD move on. ...

A record of each Formal Objection MUST be publicly available. A Call for
Review (of a document) to the Advisory Committee MUST identify any
Formal Objections."

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

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 20:59:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC