[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> writes:
> robin.berjon@expway.fr (Robin Berjon) writes:
> >I wouldn't think so. The way I understand the process, if a number of
> >AC reps clamour vigorously against a spec, something will come of it.
> >You don't need a majority.
>
> It would, of course, be nice to know that. Since we can't know that,
> we're just stuck in the usual Kremlinology and prayer.
The objective publicly available information consists of the texts of
all the Director's Decision announcements, which all contain a
discussion of the AC input. On the basis of this public record, it is
evident that _any_ hard negative input is taken extremely seriously,
and seen to require significant justification and/or ameliorative
action if the decision is to go ahead.
Speaking as a WG and AC member (i.e., not as W3C staff, which I also
am), my sense is that nothing _close_ to a negative majority is
required to stop a REC -- two or three serious objections are likely
to be fatal.
An additional observation about the effect of negative AC input is the
frequency with which documents on the W3C REC track "back up", that
is, having reached Last Call or CR, go back to WD. This often
reflects recognition by the relevant WG that they're not going to get
the support they need to get through PR to REC without significant
changes, which in turn require backing off. For example, User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [1] backed up two or three times,
depending on how you count, before finally going to PR and then REC.
ht
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
