W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Re: collecting objections

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:42:46 +0100
Message-ID: <3F72F0D6.8060106@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 10:05, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> [...]
>>I suggest it is critical to get I18N to formally record their objection this 
>>week or next.
> For the Nth time, they are already on record; we notified
> them of our 9 may decision to revise
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
> and they let us know that no, that wasn't acceptable.
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0200.html

Please forgive me, but I am finding the process for handling formal 
objections rather confusing and request advice from W3C team to ensure 
that we execute correctly.

Firstly, with regard to the message Dan refers to:

 >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0200.html

this is a message from Martin, and not from I18N.  It would appear not 
to have been endorsed by them and indeed contains:

We discussed this issue shortly at the last i18n core teleconference,
but most people didn't feel they understood the issues enough.

I would not wish to appear to undermine the I18N case by including a 
reference to 'formal objection' that says "we don't understand the issue 
but ..."

Secondly, I am distinguishing in my mind between a statement that some 
one does not accept a decision made by the WG and raising a formal 
objection against it.  I find some support for this in the process 
document, which appears to distinguish between an objection and a formal 
objection, though I find the text unclear.

When the Chair believes that the legitimate concerns of the dissenters 
have received due consideration as far as is possible and reasonable, 
then objections MUST be recorded and the group SHOULD move on.

A formal objection SHOULD include technical arguments and propose 
changes that would remove the dissenter's objection; these proposals MAY 
be vague or incomplete. The Chair MUST report an objection that includes 
such information to the Director at later review stages (e.g., in the 
request to the Director to advance a technical report to Candidate 
Recommendation). If an objection does not include this information, the 
Chair is NOT REQUIRED to report it at later review stages.

Note the use of the term 'objection' in the first sentence, and 'formal 
objection' in the second.

Thirdly, I note the message from Martin that DanC refers to does not 
contain proposed changes.

My present inclinitation is to ask I18N whether they have decided to 
raise a formal objection and if so, to refer us to publicly accessable 
text describing their objection to which we can refer in the last call 
announcement.  That would seem to resolve any ambiguity and gives I18N 
the opportunity to clearly explain their concerns.

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 09:51:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:08 UTC