W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Pointer Events Recommendation delayed by a Formal Objection

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>
Message-Id: <195621423151934@webcorp02h.yandex-team.ru>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 February 2015 15:59:26 UTC