W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: ISSUE-200: legend-placement - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:10:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4F43FA47.1090006@intertwingly.net>
To: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 02/20/2012 07:45 PM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com wrote:
> Thanks for clarification. Well, if it's required for considering the
> issue at all, I would like to try to create proposal in nearest 2-3
> days (this may be treated as my request to extend period for issue
> 200). Thanks.

That's fine.  I'll change the status of the issue back to raised, and 
set a new deadline for the 26th of February.

> P.S. To make it more clear for future tracker requests by others, it
> maybe makes sense to specify formal-proposal requirement briefly
> right inside _mailing-list message_ created once issue is raised.
> Decision-policy document, while maybe formally sufficient, seems to
> be too verbose and not enough clear for third-party people who raise
> issues for the first time (like me). Thanks.

We already do calls for proposals and make it clear what the 
consequences are if we don't receive such a proposal.  If you think 
something more is needed, please open a bug report on the process:

   http://tinyurl.com/6bpw9pq

- Sam Ruby

> 21.02.2012, 04:29, "Sam Ruby"<rubys@intertwingly.net>:
>> On 02/20/2012 07:06 PM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com wrote:
>>
>>> Could you specify what does this mean? What change proposals are
>>> assumed? From who? Isn't raising issue itself a sufficient action
>>> by bug-reporter? Thanks.
>>
>> Here's a description of what is expected in a change proposal:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal
>>
>>
>>
Somebody needs to provide the summary, rationale, proposal details, and
>> evaluate the impact of the proposed change.  If those had been
>> provided, we would ask for alternate or counter proposals.
>> Requests that do not provide this information are deferred to
>> whatever might happen to come after HTML5.
>>
>> If somebody plans to work on this, and needs a small extension,
>> they should make a request now.  The longer it goes, the less
>> likely the chairs are to grant such an extension.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>>> 21.02.2012, 03:56, "Sam Ruby"<rubys@intertwingly.net>:
>>>> On 01/17/2012 09:49 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>>>>> 'Allow wrapping LEGEND (or new iLEGEND) in non-FIELDSET
>>>>> elements'
>>>>>
>>>>> Per the HTML WG Decision Policy, at this time the chairs
>>>>> would like to solicit volunteers to write Change Proposals
>>>>> for ISSUE-200:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/200
>>>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
If no Change Proposals are written by February 16th, 2012, this
>>>>> issue will be closed without prejudice.
>>>> As we have received no change proposals, we are now marking
>>>> this issue as closed without prejudice.
>>>>> Issue status link:
>>>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-200
>>>>>
>>>>> /paulc HTML WG co-chair
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa,
>>>>> Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 20:11:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:30 UTC