- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:59 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > 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. >> My reading of the process document concurs with Graham not Dan ... http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#doc-reviews [[Reviewers MAY register a formal objection any time they are dissatisfied with how a Working Group has handled an issue.]] with formal objection linked to http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews with text which clearly suggests that a formal objection is a document of some sort (e.g. an e-mail). However, http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#Consensus defines consensus has including the absence of objections - and it is not clear whether this is or is not intended to mean formal objections. I act on the assumption that voting against=objection and these !=formal objection Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 11:31:57 UTC