- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:40:26 -0500
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, 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 Laura The powers-that-be have to respond, of course, but the impression I received is this is the only option. That's fair. If the only patent policy is associated with membership, then I can more than understand. Going to be a bit of a mess when this thing goes for last call, though. Regards Shelley Laura Carlson wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 04:41:07 UTC