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

Re: volunteering for change proposal for issue 117

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:40:26 -0500
Message-ID: <4C75F03A.6070708@burningbird.net>
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 GMT

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