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

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

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:04:42 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A06C25A3@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Please for my education:

  <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection>

  "A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the reviewer requests 
  that the Director consider as part of evaluating the related decision 
  (e.g., in response to a request to advance a technical report). Note: 
  In this document, the term "Formal Objection" is used to emphasize 
  this process implication: Formal Objections receive Director
consideration."

I do not really understand what exactly the director (TimBL ?) will / can /
should do in such a case. Can anyone answer, or better, give an example of a
previous formal objection and how it was handled?

Thanks,
Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:50 PM
>To: Bijan Parsia
>Cc: Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG; Jim Hendler
>Subject: Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property)
>
>
>
>Hmmm,
>
>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?
>
>Jeremy
>
>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.
>> 
>
>
>

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus


Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 17:05:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 January 2008 17:05:09 GMT