Re: Formal Objection to One vendor, One Veto

Shelley Powers wrote:
> I believe the process to register a formal objection is to send an email 
> to this group, and label it as such. If there's another group I should 
> contact, please let me know.

I'll check into the process (and am copying Mike and Dan as they are the 
W3C team contacts for this working group, but meanwhile three things:

1) This Mailing list is described as a "Miscellaneous.  Mail-to-web 
gateway" on  My understanding is that its primary 
purpose is to allow a public URI to be associated with an email that is 
sent.  As a general rule, it is a great resource for taking discussions 
"off-line" which may later need to be referred to.  In any case, I have 
seen this email, and will take it seriously.

2) The document in question is merely a Working Draft at this point 
which means that it may be unstable and may not meet all of the Working 
Group's needs at this point.  As such, a formal objection seems a bit 
premature, but only by a little bit as it makes perfect sense to me for 
Formal Objections to block advancement to Last Call.

3) I need to think more about what it means to have a formal objection 
to process as opposed to a result.  Formal objections to results, like a 
document which contain features like video which do not lead to 
interoperability due to a lack of specifying a common royalty-free 
codec: that is something I can get my head around.  A formal objection 
to removing Canvas (I chose Canvas as that is an item that the working 
group previously voted on and decided to include) in the unlikely event 
that Microsoft makes a statement that they will never support such a 
feature -- that too, I can understand.  But a Formal Objection to 
something that not only hasn't happened, but may never happen -- that is 
something I need to ponder on further and consult with others.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 00:00:03 UTC