W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

RE: Issue 30 (Was: RE: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:01:57 +0000
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E296FA7@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
> wrote:
> >>> 2. Not acting because there *may* be a Formal Objection isn't a reason.
> >> Granted, I don't know the players, who might object or how complex
> >> that process is. If I tell a client I'm not going to follow the
> >> agreed scope of work (the existing committed process and deadline, in
> >> this analogy) because he or she may object, I'd expect to be fired.
> >> I'd continue to move ahead and follow the expectations that have
> >> already been set. A Formal Objection will be dealt with, but at least there
> will be *movement*.
> >>
> >> There is no "may" about it.  We have people making such statements
> >> without having even seen a decision.  We have every reason to believe
> >> that they will follow through.  And that resolving such FOs will delay our
> entry to CR.
> >
> > Now you have me in a process knowledge-gap.
> >
> > Will a Formal Objection to an attribute that isn't even in the spec really
> delay an end of 2014 CR date? Is the process that complex?
> All Formal Objections must be fully processed before we can enter CR. So it
> would shift all milestones starting with entry to CR by however long that
> takes.

I don't know what "processed" means in this context (I understand it with meat, not with FOs).

Can a Formal Objection be processed by declaring it as a future extension spec? Is there a document somewhere that tells me what the processes are?

> > Is it likely that there may be other Formal Objections to other aspects of
> the spec? Should we toss those aspects aside if someone threatens a Formal
> Objection?
> >
> > Yes, those are rhetorical, but it seems to me this approach enables anyone
> who wants to threaten a Formal Objection as a way to strong-arm an action
> (or lack of action).
> >
> > To me, that isn't a reason to stop moving ahead on this or other issues that
> are already in play.
> We hope that in this case, an extension spec can be a compromise that will
> not lead to strong objections from either side. We may be wrong on that. But
> the W3C Process requires groups to find proposals that draw the weakest
> objections. The Director has made clear to the Chairs that, while it may not
> be possible to avoid every Formal Objection, the WG should not run
> headlong intot hem either.

What I am reading here is that if I don't like how an aspect of the spec is coming along, I can threaten a Formal Objection and the Chairs, at the direction of the Director, should avoid doing that thing that made me threaten it.

This sounds like a broken policy that enables threats of a FO. Moreso if the "processing" method is overly complex.
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 20:02:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC