Re: Pointer Events Recommendation delayed by a Formal Objection

Hi, Patrick–

On 2/5/15 9:45 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 05/02/2015 14:29, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> An update on the publication of the Pointer Events Recommendation ...
>> The comment period ended on January 16 and the review results are
>> Member-confidential [1]. Of the 17 W3C Members that replied to the
>> proposal to publish the Recommendation, 16 supported publishing the
>> specification "as is" and one Member (who is also a member of the
>> Pointer Events Working Group) filed a Formal Objection and "suggests the
>> document not be published as a Recommendation" (the formal objection is
>> Member-confidential [FO] so I can't copy it to this list).
>> Sorry for the delay; I'll send an update when I know more.
> In principle, what's the process here? Do we get a chance to respond to
> the objection?

Just to let you know the process:

1) When the Formal Objection was raised, I had conversations with those 
members who contacted me about the Formal Objection; for example, I had 
an informal conversation with Jacob Rossi of Microsoft, and with Art 
Barstow as chair, as well as Chaals from Yandex, to determine what the 
preferred path forward would be; the sentiment from everyone I spoke to, 
except Yandex, was that they wanted to move Pointer Events forward as a 
W3C Recommendation (I didn't feel the need to speak to the entire WG, 
because the WG already formally decided to request to move to 

2) We arranged a meeting with the Director, the WG chair, and the 
objector, to give each "side" a chance to put their argument forth to 
the Director, and to see if we could find common ground for moving 
forward. Each party made their case, and while we didn't find common 
ground, the Director collected the information to make an informed 
decision about whether to publish.

3) No formal decision by the Director has been made yet, but it will be 
made and announced soon. At this point, the Director is making another 
attempt to find a mutually acceptable path forward. I expect this to be 
resolved (one way or another) in the next week.

I apologize for the delay, and the lack of clarity thus far. I'm 
somewhat hampered in what I can say because of member and team 
confidentiality. At the same time, however, it's important that we treat 
Formal Objections (from anyone) seriously, and try our best to find a 
mutually acceptable path forward, even if it causes a short delay.

I can see an argument for this whole process to be more open and 
transparent, with a notification to the WG about the Formal Objection 
right away. However, that would invite an even lengthier discussion, and 
we hoped that an initial call with objector and the Director might make 
that unnecessary. Unfortunately, that did not happen, putting the 
publication on hold until a final decision has been made. Because of 
that, at this point, Art appropriately decided to let the WG know why 
the spec wasn't published.

(Personally (e.g. not an official W3C stance), I think Formal 
Objections, and the meeting with the Director to discuss them, should 
all be done on the public record. But that's not my decision to make; 
it's up to the Advisory Committee.)


Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 15:39:04 UTC