W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Closing issues. Setting and meeting deadlines. (was Re: Issue-9 (video-accessibility): Chairs Solicit Proposals)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:00:10 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa1003040700s62059193l85f568dbc4fc2689@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Paul,

> I think the WG needs to decide how much effort we want to put into
> keeping the Tracker issue State correct when the information is
> already recorded in the Change Proposal Status page.

I agree. When Chris was Chairing, the group did spend time on tracker
definitions:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Main_Page#Tracker_Definitions
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/70

It is probably minor updating but, at some point would be good to have
those definitions in sync with the policy.

> Thanks for pointing out this situation.

You are welcome.

Actually the main points that I wanted confirmation of, are  the
second two bullets.

* If the change proposal is not done by the deadline, the issue will
be closed without prejudice and DEFERRED to the NEXT VERSION of HTML.

* An issue that is closed without prejudice in this way can only be
re-raised with approval of the HTML Chairs. It is an ENDPOINT for the
escalation process.

Are these correct?

Thanks.

Best Regards.
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 15:00:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:03 GMT