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

Re: CfC: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:29:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4B7C0B49.3070805@intertwingly.net>
To: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
CC: W3C HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Martin Kliehm wrote:
> On 17.02.2010 12:32, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> The rules for a Formal Objection can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews 
>>
>> An individual who registers a Formal Objection SHOULD cite technical
>> arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal
>> Objection; these proposals MAY be vague or incomplete. Formal
>> Objections that do not provide substantive arguments or rationale
>> are unlikely to receive serious consideration by the Director.
>>
>> At the present time, I don't see any specific, substantive actionable
>> technical arguments in this part of your objection. That being said, I
>> am quite willing to participate in the forwarding of this objection to
>> the Director, and encourage you to provide more specifics. I fear that
>> until or unless this is done, your Formal Objection will not be met with
>> serious consideration until it has be augmented with substantiative
>> details on what exactly needs to be fixed.
> 
> I appreciate your efforts to convince me and also the linking of the 
> relevant documents. I was familiar with them at the time of my writing, 
> and I know that it's your right to deem my objections insubstantive or 
> insufficient and proceed without consideration. I still think they are 
> substantial. But it's fine that we disagree, and I have no bad feelings 
> about it. ;)

It is considerably more than that.  I'm explicitly inviting you to 
provide substantive details.  This could be as simple as a list of bug 
reports that identify issues that you feel need to be worked.

It is not the case that your objection will not be considered, rather it 
is the case that your objection will get all the consideration that it 
merits.  I'm merely advising you that proposals that are absent of 
virtually any substantive arguments, rationale, or do not propose 
changes do not have a tendency to merit much consideration.

And similarly, it is not a matter that would involve me harboring any 
bad feelings.

> Cheers,
>   Martin

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 15:29:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC