Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-56 urls-webarch (correction)

On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> As this objection applied to the first two change proposals, our
> attention turned to evaluating the objections to the third proposal.
> After identifying a number of arguments which we are unable to consider
> (see below for details), we were unable to find any objections to the
> proposal to restore the removed text.
> *** Decision of the Working Group ***
> Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the Change Proposal to
> restore the removed text that explained how to translate input strings
> contained in text/html documents into URIs.  Of the Change Proposals
> before us, this one has drawn the weaker objections.
> == Next Steps ==
> Bug 8207 is to be REOPENED and marked as WGDecision.
> Since the prevailing Change Proposal does call for a spec change, the
> editor is hereby directed to make the changes in accordance to the
> change proposal.  Once those changes are made, ISSUE-56 is to be marked
> == Appealing this Decision ==
> If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and would
> like to raise a Formal Objection, they may do so at this time. Formal
> Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team.
> Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a transition
> request.  Note that Formal Objections that do not provide substantive
> arguments or rationale are unlikely to receive serious consideration by
> the Director.
> == Revisiting this Issue ==
> This issue can be reopened if new information come up.  An example of
> possible relevant new information include:
> * IETF completing production of a document suitable as a formal
>  reference.
> == Arguments not considered
> The following argument was not considered for the reason specified:
>  "The removed text was a complete fantasy"
> This argument is entirely lacking in specifics.

How so?  The specific text that was removed from the spec was a complete
fantasy -- it did not and does not reflect any actual, proposed, or
desired implementation of HTML.  That is why it was removed.  I have
explained that multiple times and provided reference to mailing list
discussion.  I did not have to provide a patch because the CP is already
specific to what text is being restored.  Please explain to me how that
is in any way lacking of specifics.

>  "To make progress, we should go back to the drawing board and turn
>  Roy's proposed text into a concrete change proposal."
> We only evaluate concrete proposals that are actually received.  This
> issue was raised in June of 2008.  A call for alternate or counter
> proposals was issued in March of 2010.  Since that time, not a single
> Working Group member converted that proposed text into a concrete
> change proposal.  Without a concrete change proposal, we can't evaluate
> the proposed change for completeness.  Without a complete proposal, we
> can't reasonably solicit objections.  Without soliciting objections, we
> can't chose the proposal that attracts the weakest objections.

Then none of the proposals satisfy the issue.  There were four responses
to the survey.  Two of the four objected to the proposal that you claim
the WG has adopted.  None of the four (or anyone else, for that matter)
argued for the adoption of the CP that you claim the WG has just adopted
as consensus.  Therefore, none of the CPs have been adopted by the
working group, by any reasonable evaluation of objections.  In any case,
no decision was made on *this issue* even if the CP is applied, since
the CP expressly does not resolve the issue.

The issue should remain open until the issue is resolved.  Applying
a CP that does not resolve the issue does not help us make progress.


Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 17:04:57 UTC