Clarify council text in case of multiple objections to a single decision #1045
Conversation
Even though the logic already was that the Council processes all objections to a single decision together, parts of the original text were written as if there was only a single objection, and were awkward or in case of several. This rephrasing makes the text coherent. See w3c#1041 Co-authored-by: fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net>
Co-authored-by: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
|
These changes focus on each decision, not on each FO (nor on each facet of each FO), which is the reverse of the perspective generally desired in today's concall. |
I wasn't on the call, but I disagree with that perspective - the focus should be on Decisions not FOs in my opinion. |
| even if it agrees with some of the supportive arguments. | ||
| <dfn>confirm</dfn> or <dfn>overturn</dfn> the decision being objected to. | ||
| The [=W3C Council=] <em class=rfc2119>may</em> [=confirm=] the decision | ||
| even if it agrees with some of the arguments of a [=Formal Objection=]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| even if it agrees with some of the arguments of a [=Formal Objection=]. | |
| even if it agrees with some of the arguments made as part of a [=Formal Objection=]. |
phrasing. YMMV...
+1 to @nigelmegitt |
|
This looks like a good rephrasing that clarifies while preserving the intent of the original text. I agree with @TallTed though (assuming I'm understanding you correctly) that Councils need to consider all the arguments made within each FO to properly come to a conclusion on whether to uphold or overturn a decision. |
Even though the logic already was that the Council processes all objections to a single decision together, parts of the original text were written as if there was only a single objection, and were awkward or in case of several.
This rephrasing makes the text coherent.
See #1041
Preview | Diff