W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:50:10 +0000
Message-ID: <4790D8C2.3090307@hpl.hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>


I see you are more up on this bit of the process document than I.

It seems to indicate that it is not possible to vote against without 
formal objecting ....

Sandro, Ivan, is that the correct reading?

Should I have been instructed to either formally object or to abstain?


Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2008, at 16:06, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> [snip]
>> "(i.e., we had consensus on the telecon)"
>> no, I voted against (I suggest review the IRC)
> You voted against in a straw poll and when asked didn't call for a 
> formal vote and indicated that you didn't formally object.
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus
> Saying you didn't formally object means that, in a formal vote, you 
> would at worst abstain. So we have non-unanimous consensus:
> """Where unanimity is not possible, a group should strive to make 
> consensus decisions where there is significant support and few 
> abstentions."""
> We had strong evidence of two abstentions (i.e., Jim literally used the 
> word "abstain" and you said, and I quote the minutes "it's not a formal 
> objection"). By definition we have consensus.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 16:50:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC