- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:51:17 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:33 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> [...] I disagree with you slightly on >> the order of things though. My understanding is: technically you can >> only Formally Object to a decision, not to a proposal. Thus, while >> you >> can declare the intent to raise a Formal Objection in advance of a >> decision, you can't actually enter one until the decision is made. > > Yeah, I've seen lots of chairs work that way, but it makes no > sense, to me... how can the chair decide whether the question > carries or not if s/he doesn't know how many objections there are > and how serious they are? > > I sometimes wish the process document were more clear on that. The way I see it: you can register your disagreement, and how serious it is, before a decision is made. Even to the point of saying, "I feel so strongly that if the decision goes against me I will Formally Object." If the decision carries anyway, Formal Objection is your chance to register the fact that you still strongly disagree, are proceeding under protest, and wish to have the decision reviewed by the Director at the next relevant transition. Essentially, it is an escalation mechanism if you truly can't live with the WG decision. Anyway, not a hugely important point. Ideally, we can avoid a high volume of formal objections. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:51:59 UTC