- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 09:30:33 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, www-archive@w3.org
On May 7, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > [...] >> Well, there's people in between where it's hard for me to tell if >> they would have registered an FO as a follow-on to a "no" vote. > > This business where the FO is a follow-on to a decision seems > broken, to me. The point at which to object, formally, is when > the question is put, not after the decision is made. I've asked around, and that doesn't seem to be the way other W3C Working Groups do it. I've heard from representatives from the Web API, WAF, SVG, CSS, CDF, Web Security Context, Mobile Web Best Practices and Device Description WGs, in all cases they decide by simple majority after sufficient discussion, and Formal Objections have to be registered separately. I encourage you to ask other chairs about this. The Process document also says: "In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection to a decision." This seems pretty clear that the Formal Objection is to a decision actually made, not just a proposed resolution. I feel a little guilty citing the Process document, but I really do think a voting process where every disagreement with the majority must be reviewed by the Director creates practical problems as cited in my original email. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 16:30:56 UTC