W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 18:32:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin4_B-_HcjM-dW-ZZ9SIEDOxGW_meaCEL8o4YuT@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 08:03 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Something for people to keep in mind, now -- the chairs don't judge
>> based on the proposals or counter-proposals, only the objections raised
>> in the surveys for both. I don't believe this was clearly stated in the
>> decision process.
> As previously stated, the chairs are attempting to follow the W3C
> process[1], and therefore after all attempts at amicable resolution fail,
> seek to favor proposals that create the weakest objections.

To be completely specific, are these "weakest objections" you speak of
*only* the objections given during the survey, or are the various
proposals counted as objections against each other (when appropriate)?

I specifically avoided commenting on the polls with an objection to
the Change Proposals, as I felt that my objections were adequately
stated in the counter proposals that I helped author.

If the "objections" are only those that appear in the survey, I will
in the future avoid putting any effort into counter proposals, and
save that effort for objecting when the poll comes around instead.
This would be a bad use of process (it would be just moving the
counter-proposal phase into the poll objections phase), but I'm
interested in maximizing the effect of the effort I spend here.

Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 01:33:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:02 UTC