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

Re: ISSUE-27(rel-ownership) Call for Change Proposal advocates

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:46:53 -0500
Message-ID: <4CDAA24D.8060609@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 11/10/2010 08:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 10.11.2010 14:30, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 11/10/2010 08:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 10.11.2010 14:16, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> The HTML WG Chairs are evaluating the status of the current three
>>>> different ISSUE-27: rel-ownership change proposals. See:
>>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-027
>>>> Before the Chairs issue a survey on this issue we would like to ensure
>>>> that there is AT LEAST one "advocate" in the WG for each of the three
>>>> change proposals. If there are NO advocates for one or more of the
>>>> proposals then the Chairs propose to drop that change proposal from the
>>>> eventual WG survey on Issue-27 since we believe that will greatly
>>>> simplify the survey and the results processing.
>>>> Please reply to this email if you are an advocate FOR one or more of
>>>> the
>>>> following change proposals with a clear indication of which proposal(s)
>>>> you support:
>>>> 1. Change Proposal: Replace Wiki-Based Link Relation Registry with IANA
>>>> registry proposed by "Web Linking" draft
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1006.html
>>>> ...
>>> Me.
>>> Note that the change proposal originated from Mark Nottingham; I'm not
>>> sure whether it should be updated before a poll (reflecting publication
>>> of RFC 5988, supporting web sites, and initial registrations), though.
>> Just be aware: we only intend to survey and evaluate proposals which
>> actually are received.
> Yes, but on the other hand all counter proposals were received after the
> deadline.
> So I think it would be fair to actually allow Mark to look at the CP and
> consider whether it needs an update.

Fair enough: I wasn't clear.  All I was trying to express is the 
sentiment that if we don't get an update, we will proceed with what we 
have.  If we get an update before we proceed to a survey, we will 
evaluate whether or not to include it in the survey.

> Best regards, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 13:47:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:06 UTC