On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org> wrote: > Doug, > > On Mar 26, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Doug Turner wrote: > >> matt, I am confused. > > Sorry for the confusion, I thought I spelled out clear enough what was going > to happen in the thread on issue-2 [1]. >> >> Issue-2: Sounds like the tracker for the geopriv proposal we voted down. >> if so, can we close >> Issue-4: Sounds like the same as issue-2. Is this a dup? >> >> We all have spent dozens of hours on Geopriv. We voted it down at the >> f2f. UAs that were present were either on the fence or directly in >> opposition. > > We resolved to publish without including the proposal [2], but that's good > enough. I'm fine with the chairs closing it (especially given John's > message earlier [3]), but as I said before we still need the trail. > Matt, it's fine to close this. As far as I understand nobody in this WG still thinks the issue is open. When closing, it would be good to add the conclusion from the f2f meeting in London (copy & paste from the mtg minutes). I volunteer to do this myself if that's ok with you. AndreiReceived on Thursday, 26 March 2009 18:37:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:13:31 GMT