- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:10:03 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > Chris, Julian, > > You said "yes" to: > > "Should a revised charter be reviewed by the W3C membership per section > 5.3 Modification of an Activity of the W3C Process document?" > -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq2 > > Note the request just below the question: > > "If so, please suggest specific changes in a comment." > > Would you please suggest some specific changes that would satisfy you? > > Likewise, Sam, you wrote: > > Please treat this answer as if it were "yes, but only if the > charter was modified first". > > -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results > > Please suggest a change that would satisfy you. While I'm uncomfortable about rampant scope creep, and uncomfortable about a monolithic standard, I think that objections without constructive proposals should merely be noted and should not otherwise impede further progress. > Note that since there isn't consensus to accept a > canvas requirement, it's up to the chairs to figure out whether > the question carries. I'd like to know if there's a straightforward > charter change that will satisfy the dissenters while I'm thinking > it over and talking it over with my co-chair in the next few days. Given that there is evident widespread support for this feature, and no specific proposals to revise the charter have surfaced, I would like to amend my vote at this time to be an "abstain". - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 16:13:46 UTC