- From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:58:54 +0300
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
Hi folks, [I got the core of our objection onto the public list now, so we can continue the discussion there if you like] 05.02.2015, 18:39, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>: > Hi, Patrick– > > On 2/5/15 9:45 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: >> On 05/02/2015 14:29, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> In principle, what's the process here? Do we get a chance to respond to >> the objection? > > Just to let you know the process: [sensible process as far as I can tell] > 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. Yup. Sorry. > 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. Agreed. > 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. That's really an argument about process, not one for this group, but I would have been fine with that - and it might have pushed my priority stack in a way that would have made life better for people. > 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.) Noted for the process task force and the AC. But my personal position is that this won't always fly, and I would prefer to prioritise the input over transparency if it really came down to it. My experience is that there has generally been a reasonable amount of transparency provided "post hoc", without compromising the confidence that enables frank input to be heard by the director and judged. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 15:59:26 UTC