6 ms·

Looks like he explains his objection at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0360.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Fe

• telemachos 17y ago
  Yup, thanks. Someone quickly responded that he had wished to be formal earlier (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002...): So I object to the chairs' decision that these documents are in scope. I suppose a formal objection is decided by the domain lead, or appealed to the Director, and the team contact can help with this process? it's not in the special HTML-WG-only process document how this group goes about appealing decisions which the chairs seem to have made. If I need to use the word "formally" in there somewhere, or if there's some "Formal Appeal Change Proposal" form I'm supposed to fill in, recapitulating all of the email arguments made to date, suggesting the documents "change" by disappearing, and written in iambic hexameter, please let me know. That quickly devolves into some discussion of possible uses of the word 'formal', the minutes of a phone conference, other emails, typos, and also some serious conversation about whether or not the private lists should be used this way. Tab Atkins Jr. wrote this: I would like to register my strong disapproval of this entire affair. This was an abuse of the member-only lists. Any Objection, potential or not, should _always_ take place on the public list. I am disappointed in the author of the private emails for their actions. It really all is surprisingly like the senate, which to my mind is a shame. Having said that, maybe there's some inevitable thing that happens when this many people, much money, etc. are involved.