W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Change Proposals and FPWD Resolutions

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:21:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4B1FCE71.7050704@intertwingly.net>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Manu Sporny wrote:
> Krzysztof MaczyƄski wrote:
>> I'd like to ask you to reconsider this. Without it the 
>> Change Proposal uses convincing arguments and may appeal 
>> to people who want Microdata published separately as 
>> well as those who believe it's better not to publish a 
>> public spec at this time.
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> You make a good point. I'm uncertain of the number of people that hold
> your viewpoint, although that is not to say that you're wrong - just
> that I don't know what the reality of the situation is currently. My
> intent was to ensure that Microdata continues to be worked. I'm averse
> to giving the impression that we're prematurely tabling this particular
> technology.
> 
> Do you think that having another straw poll option would be productive?
> So the choices would be:
> 
> 1. [ ] Adopt ISSUE-76 Change Proposal with no changes - split out
>        Microdata.
> 2. [ ] Adopt ISSUE-76 Change Proposal, with one change - do not publish
>        HTML+Microdata FPWD.
> 3. [ ] Adopt ISSUE-76 Counter Proposal - do not split out Microdata.
> 
> Chairs, would you be willing to add option #2 to the upcoming straw poll?

Short answer: I would prefer not to.

Longer answer: I want to make one thing clear: the intent of the poll is 
not to seek the most popular option, the intent is to Manage Dissent per:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent

Put another way, what we are looking for is to see if we can anticipate 
what formal objections may be produced by whatever decision is made, and 
to see if we can avoid them.  If it turns out that there will be formal 
objections any way we go, the co-chairs will select the option that we 
feel is associated with the weakest set of objections.

In many ways we are intending to use the WBS tool not as a vote or even 
as a poll, but merely as a way of helping us collate into one place 
people's intent to pursue a formal objection should a given decision be 
made, as well as what the basis such a formal objection would contain.

So again, (and I will repeat myself for clarity): we are not looking for 
input from who people can live with either (or all three) options at 
this time.  What we are looking for is input from people within the 
group who seriously intend to take raise a formal objection, and the 
content of such objections.

I will further note that W3C policy describes what it expects to see in 
such objections:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews

I'd like to draw your attention to the words "propose changes that would 
remove the Formal Objection".  Given the current state of both the 
change proposal and the counter proposal, it is conceivable to me that 
somebody could object to both, and give "not publishing at all" and 
"removing the section entirely" as their proposed changes to the 
proposal and the counter proposal respectively.

A final note: I want to get this issue behind us, so I very much want to 
set the expectation that if you fill in a box, and if the co-chairs 
select that option anyway given that we feel that the objection made is 
the weaker of the ones presented, that the person who brought this 
forward WILL be pursuing a Formal Objection in January with the 
Director.  Those that do not will risk having their subsequent input 
weighed accordingly.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 16:21:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC