Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Mention of dissent in recommendation resolution is unclear #978

Closed
wareid opened this issue Jan 15, 2025 · 3 comments
Closed

Mention of dissent in recommendation resolution is unclear #978

wareid opened this issue Jan 15, 2025 · 3 comments
Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion

Comments

@wareid
Copy link

wareid commented Jan 15, 2025

In section 6.3.9.3 the opening paragraph mentions Dissent:

If there was any dissent in Advisory Committee reviews, the Team must publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general public, and must formally address the comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C Recommendation.

The current phrasing implies AC reps can dissent on a Recommendation review without filing a formal objection, but in section 5.7.1 it's mentioned that "For clarity, in the context of an AC Review, dissent must be expressed as a Formal Objection."

The opening paragraph in 6.3.9.3 should be revised to clear this up. There wouldn't be publication if there was dissent until the Formal Objection is cleared.

@frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

frivoal commented Jan 20, 2025

If I understand you correctly, there are two problems with the quoted text:

  • Instead of "if there was any dissent", we should say "if there was any Formal Objection", since dissent can in general take other forms that Formal Objection, but in this context it cannot, so it would be clearer to avoid the indirection+clarification
  • "must formally address" is insufficient, because other parts of the process have since come into existence, and formally addressing FOs is no longer sufficient to publish, even if done 14 days in advance: publication cannot happen in the face of non overruled FOs which have not been retracted.

Is that right?

@wareid
Copy link
Author

wareid commented Jan 21, 2025

Yes and yes!

In short, it's probably easiest to get rid of this sentence, considering it's describing a scenario that can't happen (no dissent outside of an FO applies, and if its an FO no publication can happen). The rest of 6.3.9.3 is fine.

frivoal added a commit to frivoal/w3process that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2025
@frivoal frivoal added Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion and removed Needs proposed PR labels Feb 12, 2025
@frivoal frivoal added this to the Process 2024/2025 milestone Feb 12, 2025
@frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

frivoal commented Feb 12, 2025

Addressed by #987

@frivoal frivoal closed this as completed Feb 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants