W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2011

Re: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-04-21: New Issue, ISSUE-152, Decisions, Issue Status, Plans

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:57:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4DAED857.5000209@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 04/20/2011 07:38 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi sam,
>
> "While these Formal Objections can be delivered as is, both should
>    be withdrawn or replaced as they are unlikely to receive serious
>    consideration in their current form"
>
> what is the timefarme for the FO's to be updated to a form that will
> receive serious consideration?

Unless expedited, that date is likely to be some time in 2012:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#q74
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#transition-reqs
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html

In my opinion, whether expedited or not, Formal Objections that are 
vague, incomplete, do not provide substantive arguments or rationale 
serve absolutely no purpose what so ever.  If such are pursued they are 
likely to be summarily dismissed.  If they are withdrawn, similar or 
more complete Formal Objections on the same issue can be raised in the 
future.

It should come as no surprise that I advocate exhausting all available 
means before a Formal Objection is raised in the first place.

That being said, if a Formal Objection is raised it will be dutifully 
recorded and reported at the time of next Transition Request in whatever 
form the objector provides.

> regards
> Stevef

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 12:58:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:35 GMT