Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

Hi, Larry-

Larry Masinter wrote (on 2/12/10 2:29 PM):
> That's all there was, Sam. Who told you there was
> a "Formal" objection?

I think people are referring to an earlier email you sent [1]:

So I object to the chairs' decision that these documents are in scope.
If I need to use the word "formally" in there somewhere, or if there's 
some "Formal Appeal Change Proposal" form I'm supposed to fill in, 
recapitulating all of the email arguments made to date, suggesting the 
documents "change" by disappearing, and written in iambic hexameter, 
please let me know.

That could be read as saying it's a Formal Objection, or as asking what 
the formal process for deciding the scope of the group's deliverables is.

I suspect, from your most recent email, that you meant the latter... 
that you were wanting to find out how to escalate the issue without 
raising a Formal Objection.

I gather that, since the topic of the scope of these deliverables has 
been debated before and the general consensus was that they are in 
scope, there is no way of changing that now short of a Formal Objection. 
  If you were to make such a Formal Objection, the presumption is that 
it would be on behalf of Adobe unless you stated otherwise.

I'm not speaking on authority of W3C here, I'm just trying to help 
disentangle a situation that seems to have gotten messy.  I leave it up 
to Larry, the Chairs, the Team Contact, the Domain Lead, and ultimately, 
the Director to resolve.

-Doug Schepers

Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 19:53:13 UTC