W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2011

Re: request to review HTML WG chairs decision on issue 133

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:31:27 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTik6tzOE60XG5itY-_SKhGyZiOqKGoAPCSt+ix94@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
hi mike, thanks for your detailed explanation.

While i consider that the decision by the chairs decision was not based on
any explicitly stated process rule. It is now clear that the rule is:

Once an issue is closed it loses its status as a pre last call issue

The term prejudicial was meant to refer the effect upon the issue's pre-last
call status. As in the issue is closed with prejudice (it will no longer be
cosnidered as a pre last call issue)

I will not pursue this any further as it will be a waste of time.


regards
stevef

On 2 February 2011 06:56, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> I unequivocally support the conclusion that the chairs have communicated to
> you, for the reasons they have given to you. I was aware of that conclusion
> before it was announced to you and the group -- that is, I was aware of
> their conclusion to handle it as a Last Call issue rather than a prec-Last
> Call issue -- and I fully agree with that conclusion.
>
> I do recognize that you disagree with that conclusion and that you've asked
> me to review it. I have now reviewed it, and have read the other messages
> in this thread, and my response is: I believe that Sam, in his messages,
> has made the rationale for their conclusion clear, and I agree with that
> rationale as it has been stated.
>
> That said, if you want me to pursue this further, than I'll let Philippe
> know. But I'd like for you to be clear about what you want. It seems to me
> that what you've raised is a point of order and that both the chairs and
> myself have reviewed that and found there's been no infraction of the rules
> in this case.
>
> However, you've used the word "prejudicial", which seems like quite a
> strong word to be using under the circumstances. I'm mot sure what you mean
> by it. If you mean that the chairs have been prejudicial by handling it
> differently than they would have any point of order raised by any other
> member of the group, than I can't say I believe they have been prejudicial
> in that way at all. I don't see any evidence at all that the chairs did
> anything other than reach a conclusion about this using exactly the same
> criteria, in exactly the same manner, that they would have had it been any
> other similar request from any other member up the group.
>
>  --Mike
>
> Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 2011-02-01 23:01 +0000:
>
> > hi mike,
> >
> > I want to object to the chairs handling of an issue, i believe their
> > handling to be prejudicial in nature and not based upon agreed processes.
> >
> > the relevant email thread starts here:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0051.html
> >
> > I would appreciate if you could look into this and advise me on the best
> > course of action (if any) to have this reviewed
> >
>
> --
> Michael[tm] Smith
> http://people.w3.org/mike
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 08:32:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:34 GMT