- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 12 Dec 2002 09:01:59 -0600
- To: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 08:32, Peter Crowther wrote: [...] > Hmm. Repeated and sustained argument for one point of view from the > Chair on an issue that will come to a vote. Whatever happened to > Chair's impartiality per W3C Process? The word 'impartial' doesn't occur in the W3C process document. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/process.html The chair's job is to facilitate consensus in a group. They're not prohibited from taking positions, as long as it doesn't interfere with that job. They're required to be vendor-neutral, but they're expected to lead the group, and sometimes that means taking a technical position. > Dan - just on the off chance that > this partiality could be seen as trying to influence the vote, what > would Network Inference do to make a formal complaint about this abuse > of Professor Hendler's position as Chair? The only formal mechanism I'm aware of is "Appeal of a Chair's decision" under 4.1.2 Group Consensus and Votes. Informally, you're welcome to contact the team contact, i.e. me, about abuse by the chair or anybody else. > > - Peter -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 10:01:46 UTC