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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:41:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4B86C442.2030904@intertwingly.net>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, 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>
Tantek Çelik wrote:
> 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.

If the reply involves steps forward, I not only don't object to cc:'ing 
public-html, I encourage it.

> Thanks,
> 
> Tantek

- Sam Ruby

> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 18:41:41 GMT

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