Re: Formal Objection: publication of XForms 1.1 as LCWD

Hi Bjoern,

My apologies for also resending this email to you.  Again, it appears that 
your email to www-forms-editor has also appeared in the www-forms public 
mailing list.  I don't know how that happened since the email was only 
addressed to www-forms-editor. May I ask if you bcc'd it?  If so, may I 
ask that you use cc in the future so that the public list can see not only 
your feedback but also that it has received a timely and thorough response 
from the working group chair.  If on the other hand you are as mystified 
as I am about how the email showed up, then again apologies for the 
resent, but I would like the public www-forms archive to also include the 
record of my responses to you.

Here is my response (your original email is included below that for 
reference):

You objected to advancing XForms 1.1 to last call. 
You quoted requirements that pertain to advancing XForms 1.1 to candidate 
recommendation, so I believe your objection is ill-founded on that ground 
alone.  Observe, for example, that neither the director nor the AC are 
involved in the last call phase of advancement, so a formal objection to a 
last call has no meaning. 

Moreover, please carefully review the definition of "formal objection" [1] 
to ensure you are eligible [2] to raise a formal objection and what are an 
eligible individual's obligations related to doing so [3]. 

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus 
[3] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews 


A formal objection is raised about a working group decision made within 
the technical report by an eligible individual who wants the director to 
review the technical decision as part of the consideration for advancing 
the technical report to the requested next stage. 

It is not clear that your prior email objection meets any of these 
requirements either. 

This is why it would be better to focus on improving XForms 1.1 by 
breaking down your comments into parcels of technical feedback (last call 
comments) about XForms 1.1.   

In particular, I am interested in your review of the updated submission 
module in combination with the new XPath functions such as encode(), 
decode(), random(), digest() and hmac().  If these satisfy your concerns, 
please say so.  If not, please explain what you feel is missing. 

If you have other issues that you would like to raise about XForms 1.1, 
please also send those as separate last call comments to 
www-forms-editor@w3.org betwee Feb. 22, 2007 and the new extended date of 
April 30, 2007. 

In accordance with the W3C Process document, your last call comments will 
be addressed prior to the working group seeking advancement to candidate 
recommendation. 

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Workplace Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> 
Sent by: www-forms-editor-request@w3.org
04/10/2007 12:29 PM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
www-forms-editor@w3.org, public-forms@w3.org
Subject
Re: Formal Objection: publication of XForms 1.1 as LCWD







* John Boyer wrote:
>If your last call comment is not answered, then your W3C AC Rep has the
>opportunity to object to advancement to candidate recommendation. If that
>isn't done, then the issue becomes an element of the past. 

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#transition-reqs

  In preparation for advancement to Candidate Recommendation or
  subsequent maturity levels up to and including publication as a
  Recommendation, the Working Group MUST:
  ...
  6. Formally address all issues raised about the document since
     the previous step.
  ...

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#formal-address

  In the context of this document, a group has formally addressed an
  issue when it has sent a public, substantive response to the reviewer
  who raised the issue. A substantive response is expected to include
  rationale for decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a pointer to
  charter scope, or a pointer to a requirements document). The adequacy
  of a response is measured against what a W3C reviewer would generally
  consider to be technically sound.

>In the meantime, although I will be putting your email and this response 
>on the agenda for discussion and review by the Forms WG, I want to be 
>clear that I currently do not perceive your objection as being 
appropriate 
>to the XForms 1.1 last call process nor to any current efforts of the 
>Forms WG, and as such I will not be speaking to the director about your 
>objection ...

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#transition-reqs

  In preparation for advancement to Candidate Recommendation or
  subsequent maturity levels up to and including publication as a
  Recommendation, the Working Group MUST:
  ...
  7. Report any Formal Objections.
  ...

Thank you for making my point.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/