- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:26:12 -0500
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- 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>, Vlad Alexander <vlad.alexander@xstandard.com>, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Hi Shelley, >> What recourse do non-members have then if they are unsatisfied with a >> bug resolution? Should they file formal objections? > > 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. According to the HTML5 Formal Objection Wiki Page [1] , "the first time that the Director reviews Formal Objections is in the request from the Working Group to advance to Candidate Recommendation" not at Last Call. Maciej, Sam, Paul, and Philippe, when do you anticipate HTML5 advancing to Candidate Recommendation? Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/FormalObjection On 8/25/10, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 08:27:51 UTC