- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:12:30 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
Trimming CC... Kevin, unfortunately, the W3C Process doesn't work like this. Roy has introduced wording into the TPE Specification. Fine. I spotted that this wording has substantial policy-semantics (as opposed to HTTP-semantics) and raised the issue that this would deeply affect the scope and understanding of the TCS Specification. Aleecia was so kind to open ISSUE 117 in the issue tracker. We have to resolve this issue by last call. W3C Process hinders introducing language and keeping it until REC while the issue remains open. And there is no chance that the TPE Specification will go out with the wording in question without the WG having had a decision on this. So we can't just introduce wording and then say: "you'll need consensus to remove it again and I vote no". The default of the W3C Process is the other way around. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus As a final consequence this also means that if this group is unable to find consensus on the TPE Specification, this Specification will never arrive at Recommendation and we'll be seen to have failed. Best, Rigo On Monday 16 January 2012 22:37:47 Kevin Smith wrote: > However, in the short term, I think it's best to agree to disagree. Roy is > clearly not going to follow Jonathan's suggestion until/unless he feels the > rest of agree with him, which we don't (at least not all of us). So, I > suggest we table this conversation until we have a few more relevant ones > in person next week.
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 10:13:03 UTC