- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:17:56 -0700
- To: <piranna@gmail.com>, "'Jeff Jaffe'" <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>, <cobaco@freemen.be>
piranna@gmail.com wrote: > > The reasons why the Director accepted the requirement are > > outlined in my blog post on this subject. I understand that > > many in the Free Software community do not view this as valid. > > So on this point apparently we will disagree. > > > And since W3C is proud that its standards are defined by consensus, > having so much confrontation should EME specification stopped until > at least some of the differences between both sides get a common > point? I draw your attention in particular to the sentence that starts "Dissenters cannot..." "In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair MAY record a decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least one Formal Objection) so that the group may make progress (for example, to produce a deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision. 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. Groups SHOULD favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that cause strong objections from a few people. As part of making a decision where there is dissent, the Chair is expected to be aware of which participants work for the same (or related) Member organizations and weigh their input accordingly." http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent JF
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 19:18:42 UTC