W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2011

Re: request to re-open issue 133 due to submission of a change prposal.

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:32:57 -0500
Message-ID: <4D488A19.4060205@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 02/01/2011 05:18 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> hi sam,
>
> what you cited says
>
> - Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration - all issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued by this date
> Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will be treated as a Last Call comment.
>
> this was not an escalation, it was already a bug that had been
> escalated, it was already an issue, a call for proposals had already
> been issued.

And in that call for proposals we said "If no Change Proposals are 
written by December 10th, 2010 this issue will be closed without 
prejudice".  And none were offered.

And we further gave until January 22nd for the issue to be re-escallated 
in time to be considered for Last Call. and this too was not done.

> the timeline says:
>
> Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal
> Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without prejudice and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a later version of HTML.
>
> the issue has one change proposal.
>
> it would be good if the chairs followed their own rules.

We got consensus on the dates, gave plenty of time, and it is decidedly 
NOT the case that each of the 198 closed issues can be converted into a 
last call blocker simply by creating a change proposal.

Nothing I have said precludes anybody from proposing counter proposals 
at this time or for people to work towards amicable consensus.  All that 
is being stated at this time is that resolving this issue is not 
considered a prerequisite for advancing to last call.

> regards
> Stevef
>
> On 1 February 2011 21:57, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 02/01/2011 04:28 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
>         Can the chairs please explain why it has not been re-opened as a pre
>         last call issue when it was filed prior to the cutoff and closed
>         without
>         prejudice due to lack of change proposal.
>
>
>     All escalations after Jan 22, 2011 will be treated as a Last Call
>     comment:
>
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
>
>     - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> |
> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/>
> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 22:33:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:22 GMT