Re: Path forward... (RESPONSE REQUESTED)

Alan, 

Sounds like we're on the same page.  The group needs to make a *specific* decision on a path forwards.  Otherwise, we have a deadline in place.

Best,
Jonathan


On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:

> Thanks Rigo. I agree that we may find another option (e.g., Joe's
> suggestion of continuing with the technical spec). However, I strongly
> support Aleecia's suggestion that the working group making a specific
> decision. I'm glad that you seem to agree with that approach. (Please
> correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not trying to place words in your mouth).
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/23/13 4:07 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org (mailto:rigo@w3.org)> wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 23 July 2013 11:53:28 Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
> > > I think our options under W3C process are the following:
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for the clarity Aleecia... We may discover one more option on our
> > way though I don't know yet what that could be..
> > 
> > --Rigo 

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 20:32:09 UTC