- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:57:59 -0400
- 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 be withdrawn or replaced as they are unlikely to receive serious 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 If they are withdrawn, similar or more complete Formal Objections on the same issue can be raised in the future.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 UTC