W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2011

Re: request to re-open issue 133 due to submission of a change prposal.

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 22:41:34 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimZ6V_6K=Dg-UqDh8DEhxVB+HQrgWEaaGDib8sp@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
hi Sam,

i disagree and would like to object, whats the process for that?

regards
stevef

On 1 February 2011 22:32, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 02/01/2011 05:18 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
>> hi sam,
>>
>> what you cited says
>>
>> - Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration - all
>> issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued by this date
>> Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will be treated
>> as a Last Call comment.
>>
>> this was not an escalation, it was already a bug that had been
>> escalated, it was already an issue, a call for proposals had already
>> been issued.
>>
>
> And in that call for proposals we said "If no Change Proposals are written
> by December 10th, 2010 this issue will be closed without prejudice".  And
> none were offered.
>
> And we further gave until January 22nd for the issue to be re-escallated in
> time to be considered for Last Call. and this too was not done.
>
>
>  the timeline says:
>>
>> Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal
>> Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without prejudice
>> and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a later version
>> of HTML.
>>
>> the issue has one change proposal.
>>
>> it would be good if the chairs followed their own rules.
>>
>
> We got consensus on the dates, gave plenty of time, and it is decidedly NOT
> the case that each of the 198 closed issues can be converted into a last
> call blocker simply by creating a change proposal.
>
> Nothing I have said precludes anybody from proposing counter proposals at
> this time or for people to work towards amicable consensus.  All that is
> being stated at this time is that resolving this issue is not considered a
> prerequisite for advancing to last call.
>
>  regards
>> Stevef
>>
>> On 1 February 2011 21:57, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
>> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>>
>>    On 02/01/2011 04:28 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>
>>        Can the chairs please explain why it has not been re-opened as a
>> pre
>>        last call issue when it was filed prior to the cutoff and closed
>>        without
>>        prejudice due to lack of change proposal.
>>
>>
>>    All escalations after Jan 22, 2011 will be treated as a Last Call
>>    comment:
>>
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
>>
>>    - Sam Ruby
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> with regards
>>
>> Steve Faulkner
>> Technical Director - TPG
>>
>> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> |
>> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> |
>> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
>>
>> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
>> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
>> >
>>
>> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
>>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 22:42:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:31 GMT