W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > August 2010

Re: volunteering for change proposal for issue 117

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:42:22 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTim_Ozwq5X9q4p7XFfg3UTmjbSbM=1_A53sQgiRs@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, public-html-comments@w3.org, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Hi Maciej and all,

What recourse do non-members have then if they are unsatisfied with a
bug resolution? Should they file formal objections?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura

> On Aug 25, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On 08/25/2010 06:28 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> I'm volunteering to write a change proposal for Issue 117.
>>>
>>> In that case, I encourage you to rejoin the working group.
>>
>> Is this a requirement? I can understand that it is simpler to only have
>> members propose change proposals--they need to be shepherded through the
>> decision process. I can withhold my submission for a time to see if others
>> volunteer.
>>
>> As is obvious, I am intensely interested in HTML5. Frankly, though, I
>> don't feel comfortable with the HTML WG. I'm not sure re-joining would be
>> good for myself, or for the group. I get the impression that I am an
>> unwelcome disruption.
>>
>> If this is a requirement for change proposals, I need to think on it.
>
> I can understand your hesitation. But on the other hand, it can also be
> difficult for the group if a non-Member of the WG is participating
> extensively in WG activities, beyond the level of just commenting on spec
> issues.
>
>>
>>>> I asked to re-open Issue 106[1]. As I stated, I believe that the
>>>> longdesc issue--including making obsolete an attribute that was valid in
>>>> HTML4, without any intervening period of deprecation--is new
>>>> information, as is the new interest in this topic. If you do, I will
>>>> also write a change proposal for this item, too.
>>>
>>> As issue 106 was closed without prejudice, new information is not a
>>> requirement.
>>>
>> That's good to know. I hope you do re-open it, then. Perhaps after Issue
>> 41, or some of the others are resolved.
>
> For ISSUE-106, or any other issue that was closed without prejudice, we will
> reopen if we receive a completed Change Proposal. I think the same concerns
> would apply about a non-WG member writing a proposal.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 01:44:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:14:04 GMT