Re: About objections

On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 10:20, Graham Klyne wrote:
> [Switching to RDFcore, trimming cc's]
> 
> At 08:39 19/03/04 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > Speaking for myself, whilst I disagreed with the WG decision at the
> > > time, it was not and still is not my intention to lodge a formal
> > > objection.  The record shows accurately that I opposed the decision.  It
> > > does not show that I objected to it.
> >
> >Odd; I don't understand the difference.
> >
> >It seems clear to me that the WG did *not* reach consensus on
> >this issue. That seems to merit special notice.
> >
> > >   As I recall the process document
> > > requires me to jump through some hoops to lodge a formal objection.
> >
> >I have never understood it that way. When the chair calls the
> >question, you either agree, abstain, or object. And if you
> >object, you object. That's all there is to it.
> 
> For what it's worth, I do see a difference between:
> 
> (a) believing that a certain decision is not the best decision that could 
> be made (grounds for a vote against in a WG meeting), and

To me, that's grounds to abstain, not to object.


> (b) believing that a decision is sufficiently harmful that it merits a 
> formal objection on the record.
> 
> At least, that is how I have thought about these matters.  There are 
> several decisions we made that I don't think were the best possible, but 
> not so seriously flawed that I felt compelled to register a formal 
> objection.  Consensus involves some compromise.
> 
> #g
> 
> 
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> For email:
> http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?