- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:42:46 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 10:05, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > [...] > >>I suggest it is critical to get I18N to formally record their objection this >>week or next. > > > For the Nth time, they are already on record; we notified > them of our 9 may decision to revise > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure > > and they let us know that no, that wasn't acceptable. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0200.html Please forgive me, but I am finding the process for handling formal objections rather confusing and request advice from W3C team to ensure that we execute correctly. Firstly, with regard to the message Dan refers to: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0200.html this is a message from Martin, and not from I18N. It would appear not to have been endorsed by them and indeed contains: [[ We discussed this issue shortly at the last i18n core teleconference, but most people didn't feel they understood the issues enough. ]] I would not wish to appear to undermine the I18N case by including a reference to 'formal objection' that says "we don't understand the issue but ..." Secondly, I am distinguishing in my mind between a statement that some one does not accept a decision made by the WG and raising a formal objection against it. I find some support for this in the process document, which appears to distinguish between an objection and a formal objection, though I find the text unclear. [[ When the Chair believes that the legitimate concerns of the dissenters have received due consideration as far as is possible and reasonable, then objections MUST be recorded and the group SHOULD move on. A formal objection SHOULD include technical arguments and propose changes that would remove the dissenter's objection; these proposals MAY be vague or incomplete. The Chair MUST report an objection that includes such information to the Director at later review stages (e.g., in the request to the Director to advance a technical report to Candidate Recommendation). If an objection does not include this information, the Chair is NOT REQUIRED to report it at later review stages. ]] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews Note the use of the term 'objection' in the first sentence, and 'formal objection' in the second. Thirdly, I note the message from Martin that DanC refers to does not contain proposed changes. My present inclinitation is to ask I18N whether they have decided to raise a formal objection and if so, to refer us to publicly accessable text describing their objection to which we can refer in the last call announcement. That would seem to resolve any ambiguity and gives I18N the opportunity to clearly explain their concerns. Brian
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 09:51:29 UTC