- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:20:32 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Switching to RDFcore, trimming cc's] At 08:39 19/03/04 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > Speaking for myself, whilst I disagreed with the WG decision at the > > time, it was not and still is not my intention to lodge a formal > > objection. The record shows accurately that I opposed the decision. It > > does not show that I objected to it. > >Odd; I don't understand the difference. > >It seems clear to me that the WG did *not* reach consensus on >this issue. That seems to merit special notice. > > > As I recall the process document > > requires me to jump through some hoops to lodge a formal objection. > >I have never understood it that way. When the chair calls the >question, you either agree, abstain, or object. And if you >object, you object. That's all there is to it. For what it's worth, I do see a difference between: (a) believing that a certain decision is not the best decision that could be made (grounds for a vote against in a WG meeting), and (b) believing that a decision is sufficiently harmful that it merits a formal objection on the record. At least, that is how I have thought about these matters. There are several decisions we made that I don't think were the best possible, but not so seriously flawed that I felt compelled to register a formal objection. Consensus involves some compromise. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 13:23:56 UTC