- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:09:40 +0200
- To: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:58:22 +0200, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: > From the consensus document that Sam linked, it would seem that not > having consensus would not hold up publication of a document, but that > the objections should be addressed, and at a minimum, noted in the > document. Just to be clear. The document Sam linked was a very old version of the Process document. Even in that very old version of the document it is not clear that objections need to be noted in the document itself though, as can be read here: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/activities.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews Anyway, the current Process document is clear on this: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews > The document did not suggest that objections should be brushed > aside as inconsequential because some members of this group have a > problem dealing with disagreement. I agree that we should strive to reach agreement whenever possible. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:10:33 UTC