Re: Change Proposals and FPWD Resolutions

On Dec 9, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I assume you mean technically weakest, not just the least
> enthusiastic?  I.e., the chairs will go with whichever option they
> believe is better, after considering all rationales presented?  (Or
> maybe the option they think the Director will believe is better?)

We will consider the strength of objections on their merits, not just  
the vehemence of their advocates.

>
>> 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.
>
> Does this apply even if we know someone else will pursue a Formal
> Objection along the same lines?  I assume there's no point in multiple
> people filing basically similar Formal Objections.  Or are you only
> talking about the actual authors of the Change Proposals here?

What we don't want people to do is register objections that they  
themselves feel are relatively weak. For example, having a mere  
preference for one way or the other is not a strong objection. Feeling  
that one option is only slightly better, but the other is livable, is  
not a strong objection.

Regards,
Maciej