RE: Taking Associating Stylesheets Second Edition to PER [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 June 30]

On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 12:34 -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:
[...]
> Regardless, since when does the W3C PER process allow for
> one person's objection to stop something from going forward.
> 
> In fact, I didn't think there is anything in the process
> that allows for objections before even going to PER.  If
> Daniel wants to register an objection, that is supposed to
> happen during the PER review.

Just to make clear...

The entrance criteria are the same for PER as PR [1].

The entrance criteria for PR include general entrance criteria [2].

The general entrance criteria include,

[[
# Show evidence of wide review.
# Formally address all issues raised about the document since the
previous step.
# Report any Formal Objections.
]] [3].

The stage we are at is that we have objections from Daniel and Tim;
Tim has proposed text that he says will satisfy him (and we have
some editorial freedom to modify it) but we have been asked to make
an attempt again to satisfy Daniel.

Once a document is published as a PER, Daniel gets yet another chance
to throw rotten eggs...

Personally I think the PER process is a bit wonky, but that's how
it is right now at any rate.

The Process does say that it's not possible to introduce new features in
a Proposed Edited Rec, which I suppose one could argue is what Daniel is
requesting.

I'll try and help with the other points when I'm back in the office on
Monday. I think my mail was a bit too brief, and I'm sorry I wasn't able
to be on yesterday's call.

Liam

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr-edited
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs


-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 21:28:38 UTC