- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:02:40 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> I would be happy to see a structured discussion led by the chairs >> >> Let's test that assertion. >> >> The structured discussion that I would like to propose is that we >> produce concrete specs, distribute those specs widely, identify >> specific issues with those specs, and block progress of any and all >> such drafts to the Proposed Recommendation stage until those issues >> are disposed of one way or another. > > I'd like to ask for a clarification. Thanks! > Is this meant to imply that we > would not block progress to any stage earlier than Proposed > Recommendation, or do we still take a group decision at those other > transitions? No. There are transitions that require consensus, and there are transitions that do not. I believe that previous attempts to apply standards of consensus to transitions which are clearly documented as not requiring such, while well intentioned, were misguided. > In other words, are you proposing that advancement to FPWD, > LC and CR should be essentially automatic? No. > Or was your "to" meant to be a "towards"? I meant "to" to mean that specific transition. I also meant "to" in a non-exclusive manner. > Regards, > Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 14:03:29 UTC