- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:39:47 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Jos De Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 03:58, Brian McBride wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > I note that this issue... > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-uris > > was closed over the objection of 3 WG members, but it's > > not listed among the objections > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#Objections > > > > Please fix. > > Hi Dan, > > 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. I suppose I can content myself with the meeting minutes, if it comes to that. > I > did not jump those hoops. > > Of course, I want the record to be accurate. Whilst I have taken care > in the past to check with folks at varous stages of the process that all > objections were accurately recorded, if Jos or Aaron feel that they did > wish to formally object and this is not properly recorded then I will > amend the issue tracking document. > > Jos, Aaron - do you wish to have your opposition recorded as an > objection in the issue tracking document? > > Brian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 09:39:48 UTC