- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:53:11 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
On 06/01/2010 09:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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. I was going to wait a day or so before I mentioned it again, but you recently authored two change proposals which I suggested that you might want to augment. When it comes time for a poll in issues 89 and 92, what URLs should be used to identify the change proposals that people are to register their objections? As to your question in this email: the primary purpose of proposals is to make a case FOR something, i.e., provide rationale. Clearly stated objections contained within a proposal will be considered, but that isn't the primary purpose of a proposal. This is true even for proposals made in response to other proposals (i.e., counter-proposals). The chairs made a decision that uncontested content in the spec does not need rationale, but contested material does, and that responses to bug reports and proposals are the place to provide the rationale. > ~TJ - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 01:53:44 UTC