- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 07:17:10 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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? I can rewrite them to include the additional information I've sent to the list. Ping me before the poll comes up if I forget about it. > 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. This doesn't answer my question. Allow me to make it more direct. Do I hurt my case by merely authoring a change proposal and then not repeating my objections in the poll? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 14:18:05 UTC