W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2004

About objections

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:20:32 +0000
Message-Id: <>
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.


Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 13:23:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:27 UTC