Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 7, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
[...]
Well, there's people in between where it's hard for me to tell if
they would have registered an FO as a follow-on to a "no" vote.
This business where the FO is a follow-on to a decision seems
broken, to me. The point at which to object, formally, is when
the question is put, not after the decision is made.
I've asked around, and that doesn't seem to be the way other W3C Working
Groups do it. I've heard from representatives from the Web API, WAF,
SVG, CSS, CDF, Web Security Context, Mobile Web Best Practices and
Device Description WGs, in all cases they decide by simple majority
after sufficient discussion, and Formal Objections have to be registered
separately. I encourage you to ask other chairs about this.
I'm well aware that other chairs in other groups do it differently.
I still think it's wierd/broken.
The Process document also says: "In the W3C process, an individual may
register a Formal Objection to a decision."
Yeah, I might have to get that fixed.
This seems pretty clear
that the Formal Objection is to a decision actually made, not just a
proposed resolution. I feel a little guilty citing the Process document,
but I really do think a voting process where every disagreement with the
majority must be reviewed by the Director creates practical problems as
cited in my original email.
I have no use for "I disagree with the majority" data. I _only_
have use for
* I support the proposal; I'm willing to help get it deployed
* I object to the proposal to the extent that I want to put
the whole project at risk
I'm happy to lump all the rest (abstain/no answer/disagree/whatever)
together, for formal decision-making purposes.
Maybe the easiest thing is changing the label on "abstain"
to "abstain or disagree" or change the label on "no"
to "formally object".
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
