W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-55 profile by amicable resolution

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:24:25 -0800
Message-ID: <60cb038a1002251024g3701eb4etad161b3c8118f26b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
I was going to reply to this message with some additional suggestions
for steps forward but noted that "public-html" is not CCd.

Before I do reply-all and add public-html - is there any objection to
doing so?

I'll wait for a day or for to/cc folks to respond no objection,
whichever comes first.

Thanks,

Tantek

2010/2/25 Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>:
> On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 11:10 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> My main concern is seeing that this moves to resolution.  Nothing more.
>>   Nothing less.
>>
>> One way to resolve this is to decide that email that you wrote 2.5 years
>> ago did not gain consensus, note that no changes have been made to it
>> which will attract a wider consensus, and furthermore note there is wide
>> sentiment(*) that no change to the spec are required.  Closed.  Fini.
>> Done.  Motion carries over objections.  Never to be discussed again.
>
> Right... that was the way I leaned when I initially wrote to Maciej
> and company in this thread. But since then, I've been looking into
> whether anyone actually relies on head/@profile**, and it seems that
> nobody does. So I'm currently leaning toward just letting it go,
> i.e. not objecting.
>
> ** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Feb/0207.html
>
>> The other way to resolve this is for somebody to actually take an action
>> which is associated with a credible schedule which has a plausible
>> opportunity to gain consensus.
>
> The work that Manu/Tantek/Julian are doing looks fine to me.
>
> I'm a little confused about the status of issue-55, but if the
> people doing the work are happy, then there's no critical
> need to address my confusion.
>
>> Which way would you prefer?
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> (*) Yes, I'm aware of Julian's email:
>>
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0870.html
>>
>> And believe that we need a change proposal.
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>



-- 
http://tantek.com/
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 18:25:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT