- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:49:12 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 10:20, Graham Klyne wrote: > [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 To me, that's grounds to abstain, not to object. > (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 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 14:49:12 UTC