W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > September 2012

RE: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:56:28 -0700
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8026207465F1E@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Rigo,

No problem - I'll look at the meeting notes and post them to the group to provide evidence.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:45 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Shane Wiley; Aleecia M. McDonald
Subject: Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

Shane, 

please do not overburden the chair. In W3C the Chair asserts consensus. This may be a feeling in the room. If you disagree, please provide evidence that the Chair was wrong assuming consensus. 
You may find such evidence in the meeting minutes or on the mailing list. 

This doesn't say who is right or wrong, but Chairs are vulnerable and exposed in the W3C Process and we have to protect them. 

Rigo

On Thursday 06 September 2012 11:24:12 Shane Wiley wrote:
> I was in Seattle and don't remember us truly considering this option 
> if you're referring to your exercise of walking the working group 
> through alternatives if the W3C DNT standard was not completed - is 
> that what you're referring to?  Could you please help me find the 
> section in the meeting notes that you feel was a fair "group 
> consideration and rejection" of this concept?
> 
> Failing that, I believe this is a NEW and VALID issue for the group to 
> discuss and consider (and either accept or reject).
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 20:57:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:33 UTC