Re: clarification on Adobe Blocking

Doug Schepers wrote:
> 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.

I will add that this was discussed, and minuted in real time, in 
yesterday's call:

At that time, PaulC specifically requested that Larry post the Formal 
Objection on the mailing list, and that PLH post the status in response. 
  Larry agreed to do so.  If it is not a Formal Objection, then many of 
us misunderstood, and nothing was done to correct the apparent 

> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 20:07:55 UTC