Mention of dissent in recommendation resolution is unclear

[wareid]

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]

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to publish, even if done 14 days in advance: publication cannot happen in the face of non overruled FOs which have not been retracted.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]

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.