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

Re: Change Proposals, objections, and the Decision Policy

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:22:26 +0300
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Message-Id: <A51D44B5-DBAD-4A5A-931F-AE724B1D862E@iki.fi>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Jun 15, 2010, at 18:48, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:29 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 14, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>> Previously, I was under the impression that technical merit was the
>>>> salient criterion, so I couched my proposal in terms of technical
>>>> trade-offs.  I can certainly be more of an objectionist if that's
>>>> what the chairs desire.
>>> Why do you persist in this game?
>> If one wants to get good results in a system that's perceived to be biased in favor of behavior unlike one's own natural behavior, it's logical to try to find out what kind of behavior one needs to emulate to get one's proposals to pass.
>> If one looks at how much the Chairs emphasize the part of the Process document that talks about "weakest objections" (or point to it without further explanation[1]) and if one looks at the Decisions made so far, it's not unreasonable to form the hypothesis that to get one's position upheld, the effective course of action is to be more objectionist.
>> I think it doesn't make a pleasant working environment if people feel incentivized to behave more trollishly against their natural inclination, so it would be great if the chairing were such that there'd be no reason to even hypothesize that one might gain a stronger position by being more objectionist.
> What does "objectionist" mean?

Like Adam said: "one who registers objections". I'd also count threatening to file FOs as 'objectionist'.

> I couldn't find it in the dictionary, and it's not obvious to me from context. If you can tell me what one would do in the course of "being more objectionist", I can help you determine whether it would be a good idea. 

The instructions given by the chairs, the references to the process document offered without comment as well as the rationale the chairs gave when announcing the last three Decisions suggested that if one wants X, it is less effective to say "We should do X, because it is better due to reason Y." than to say "I object to not doing X." or maybe even "I will formally object if we don't do X.". I found it rather bizarre that poll instructions didn't allow me to support the no-change proposal on <figure> for its superior positive effects and instead I had to formulate my comment (which the chairs seemed indeed to take into consideration; thanks) as an objection against the deletion proposal citing failure to deliver the positive effects of the no-change proposal without actually identifying them as positive effects of the no-change proposal but as absence of positive effects in the deletion proposal.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 06:23:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC