- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:52:13 -0500
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- CC: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On 02/02/2011 06:29 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > Hi Mike, Steve and all, > > On 2/2/11, Michael[tm] Smith<mike@w3.org> wrote: >> Hi Steve, >> >>> @2011-02-02 08:31 +0000: >>> 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 >> >> Yeah, I think that's a close enough description. > > Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:01:00 +0000 Paul closed ISSUE-130 [1] without > prejudice since no change proposals were received by the Dec 10 > deadline. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Dec/0119.html > > Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:47:02 -0600 Rich wrote a Change Proposal and > requested ISSUE-130 be reopened. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Dec/0132.html > > Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:26:40 -0500 Sam reopened ISSUE-130: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Dec/0133.html > > But Rich did submit his change proposal before the January 22 [1] > cutoff date for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration. > > So maybe it is more about not submitting a proposal by that January 22 > deadline? Given the confusion evident in [1], I wish to reconfirm our common understanding that once we passed the January 22nd deadline for the submission of proposals, the understanding was that once an issue is closed it loses its status as a pre-last call issue. - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0172.html
Received on Saturday, 19 February 2011 16:52:51 UTC