Re: Begin discussions for pushing Last Call into 2010

On Aug 12, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> David Singer wrote:
>>> At 10:54  -0500 12/08/09, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the update. Unfortunate for HTML and for the Canvas  
>>>> element. A future formal objection most likely.
>>> Shelley, when you say things like this, they sound like threats.   
>>> At the moment, we are supposed to be working together to resolve  
>>> issues and do our best to stay on schedule.  I'd rather ask the  
>>> question "what can we do, or ask be done, to keep to our schedule  
>>> while providing good accessibility for canvas?"
>> No, I am stating a fact. I can't do anything about canvas being in  
>> the HTML 5 specification now, because of the past vote. I can  
>> respect that, and won't bring it up in this group again.
>> However, I plan on issuing a formal objection about it being  
>> included at the proper time, I imagine during the Last Call process.
> I'll echo DanC's previous comments[1]:
>  I don't think last call is an appropriate time to register
>  formal objections.  The appropriate time is after chair proposes
>  to close an issue and asks "any objections?" and before the chair
>  actually announces the outcome of the decision.
> Previously, he referred to this as being "out of order", which  
> literally means done in the wrong order, as well as meaning not  
> functioning well[2].
> More to the point: if you have objections, please raise them now.   
> Don't wait.  I will note that you have already raised two:
> I know this will sound odd, but thank you for doing this,  
> particularly issue 76.  I have more that I want to say about this,  
> but I would rather wait until the current poll is over.

I don't know if you meant to suggest that Shelley should raise her  
canvas objection in the issue tracker. But if so, I think that would  
be out of order. The issue is closed and the outcome has already been  
announced, by a previous Chair. Raising a new issue tracker issue  
would amount to reopening the issue - we can only do that based on new  
information. I don't think it would be out of order for her to enter a  
Formal Objection now, if she chooses to do so, since she wasn't a  
member of the WG at the time.


Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 21:56:51 UTC