W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

RE: Issue 30 (Was: RE: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:50:47 +0000
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E297198@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> 
> On 09/20/2012 04:01 PM, Adrian Roselli wrote:
> >> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> >>
> >> On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Adrian Roselli
> >> <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> 2. Not acting because there *may* be a Formal Objection isn't a
> reason.
> >>>> Granted, I don't know the players, who might object or how complex
> >>>> that process is. If I tell a client I'm not going to follow the
> >>>> agreed scope of work (the existing committed process and deadline,
> >>>> in this analogy) because he or she may object, I'd expect to be fired.
> >>>> I'd continue to move ahead and follow the expectations that have
> >>>> already been set. A Formal Objection will be dealt with, but at
> >>>> least there
> >> will be *movement*.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no "may" about it.  We have people making such statements
> >>>> without having even seen a decision.  We have every reason to
> >>>> believe that they will follow through.  And that resolving such FOs
> >>>> will delay our
> >> entry to CR.
> >>>
> >>> Now you have me in a process knowledge-gap.
> >>>
> >>> Will a Formal Objection to an attribute that isn't even in the spec
> >>> really
> >> delay an end of 2014 CR date? Is the process that complex?
> >>
> >> All Formal Objections must be fully processed before we can enter CR.
> >> So it would shift all milestones starting with entry to CR by however
> >> long that takes.
> >
> > I don't know what "processed" means in this context (I understand it with
> meat, not with FOs).
> 
> Forward to the Director.  See
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-
> 20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews

Got it. I don't see the problem there, then. I understand the Director's resistance to getting FOs tossed in willy-nilly, but that's not as compelling a reason to avoid it as I thought I might hear.


> > Can a Formal Objection be processed by declaring it as a future extension
> spec? Is there a document somewhere that tells me what the processes are?
> >
> >
> >>> Is it likely that there may be other Formal Objections to other
> >>> aspects of
> >> the spec? Should we toss those aspects aside if someone threatens a
> >> Formal Objection?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, those are rhetorical, but it seems to me this approach enables
> >>> anyone
> >> who wants to threaten a Formal Objection as a way to strong-arm an
> >> action (or lack of action).
> >>>
> >>> To me, that isn't a reason to stop moving ahead on this or other
> >>> issues that
> >> are already in play.
> >>
> >> We hope that in this case, an extension spec can be a compromise that
> >> will not lead to strong objections from either side. We may be wrong
> >> on that. But the W3C Process requires groups to find proposals that
> >> draw the weakest objections. The Director has made clear to the
> >> Chairs that, while it may not be possible to avoid every Formal
> >> Objection, the WG should not run headlong intot hem either.
> >
> > What I am reading here is that if I don't like how an aspect of the spec is
> coming along, I can threaten a Formal Objection and the Chairs, at the
> direction of the Director, should avoid doing that thing that made me
> threaten it.
> >
> > This sounds like a broken policy that enables threats of a FO. Moreso if the
> "processing" method is overly complex.
> 
> Not exactly.  We have a number of Formal Objections:
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html
> 
> These are cases where the chairs believe that the Group has duly considered
> the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, and
> that the group SHOULD move on.
> 
> Clearly the Director may feel differently, and we will deal with that.
> 
> At the present time, I don't believe that we have considered all of the
> legitimate concerns of the dissenters.  I see one plan ("Instate
> Longdesc") that appears to satisfy the needs of the educational market but
> has what some believe to be unintended and unacceptable consequences
> on the "top 10,000 web sites home pages".  I see another plan that purports
> to satisfy the need of the wider Internet, but that is disputed and
> furthermore it appears to impact the educational market as a consequence.
>
> Quite frankly, both appear to be valid objections, and the group should
> continue to work to find common ground.  My belief is that given that status,
> that work needs to continue independently until the question as to what
> market this attribute is intended to serve is resolved.

By "the group," do you mean HTML WG or a11y TF?

I will look for a link to the two plans. I assume there are two based on your comments.


> If that is resolved quickly and to the larger HTML WG's satisfaction, then
> integration in time for the HTML 5.0 release will occur.

My response to Maciej is clearer, I'll refer to you that one coming in shortly.

I think this must be how professional wrestlers feel.
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 20:51:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2012 20:51:16 GMT