Re: Begin discussions for pushing Last Call into 2010

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Aug 12, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> OK, now I'm confused. According to Dan, I can't bring the issue up 
>>>> now, unless I have new information. That's cool, I understand. In 
>>>> which case, the only time I can bring it up, is when a decision has 
>>>> been made on the HTML 5 specification, which would be following 
>>>> Last Call. I could then bring it up as a Formal Objection. Even 
>>>> though I'm a member of the WG now, I wasn't when this decision was 
>>>> made, so I'm not acting in bad faith to object.
>>>> However, you're saying I can raise this as an issue now?
>>> I think it's not appropriate to reopen the issue - issues can only 
>>> be reopened based on new information, once they are closed. But if 
>>> you want to make a Formal Objection, it would be appropriate to do 
>>> so now, instead of waiting for Last Call.
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>> That may be what Sam is suggesting -- to raise the issue now as a 
>> Formal Objection, not in the Issues database.
>> I can do that, but I thought Formal Objections normally came after a 
>> publication, and the HTML 5 spec is still only a Working Draft. But I 
>> could see how the vote was _a_ decision, and so a FO now would also 
>> be appropriate.
>> Sam, which do you want me to do? FO or Issues, and when? I want to 
>> make sure that what I do is done appropriately.
> Formal Objections are associated with a decision, such as a decision 
> by the Working Group or by a Chair.  A decision to publish is just one 
> kind of decision.  As Dan indicated, a decision was made to include 
> canvas. So, if you wish to go the Formal Objection route on that 
> particular decision, now would be the time to do it.
> I plan to ask for objections before Last Call.  As a member of the 
> working group if you don't have an objection before Last Call, and 
> then subsequently raise an objection after Last Call, and don't do so 
> for reasons of information that wasn't known to you at the time I 
> called for objections, then such an objection would be considered out 
> of order.
> I also don't want to waste the committee's time revisiting decisions 
> which were previously made so however you wish to proceed, I would 
> strongly encourage you to make your case based on information which 
> was not known at the time of the decision.
> I will also say that while I truly did not have an idea how the 
> current poll would end up (and even though there does appear to be a 
> trend at the moment, I'm still not certain), I do have a strong 
> intuition on what the consensus would be on canvas at the moment.
>> Shelley
> - Sam Ruby
Well, one thing different is that a Formal Objection would remove this 
discussion out of the group, and give it broader scope.

The current working group may consider that the current charter can be 
stretched to include Canvas, but I'm not sure others outside of the 
group would agree. (Though I'm not sure that the working group of today 
would necessarily vote the same -- the makeup of the group is different. 
Views about the Canvas element are also different. )

But I am concerned by what you say about working group members and not 
being able to raise Formal Objections after Last Call. That was not my 
understanding, from previous discussions on this issue. My understanding 
was that yes, we members of the working group could raise a Formal 
Objection after last call, if we feel doing so is important enough.

We need to have a definitive, and immutable, decision on this.


Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 23:38:08 UTC