W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2004

Re: About objections

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:59 +0000
Message-ID: <405F140F.1070702@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



Dan Connolly wrote:

> 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.
>>



My reading of the process document concurs with Graham not Dan ...

http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#doc-reviews
[[Reviewers MAY register a formal objection any time they are dissatisfied 
with how a Working Group has handled an issue.]]

with formal objection linked to
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews

with text which clearly suggests that a formal objection is a document of 
some sort (e.g. an e-mail).


However,
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#Consensus
defines consensus has including the absence of objections - and it is not 
clear whether this is or is not intended to mean formal objections.

I act on the assumption that voting against=objection
and these !=formal objection

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 11:31:57 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 22 March 2004 11:32:02 EST