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

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

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:37:24 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTim75uU4mkM0bxvqf3N8TdFMsFq7ivuijYg_va0S@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
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>
Hi Sam,

Thank you for answering my inquiry.

Thank you for stating what the HTML chairs actually meant in the
September 7, 2010 "Timeline to Last Call" message [2]. I wish had
known that earlier.

Do you have any idea when the chairs will be resolving the Bug 11447
"Please document in the decision policy the procedure for reopening an
issue"? [3]

I will be submitting a request to reopen Issue 30 soon.

Best Regards,
Laura

On 2/19/11, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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.

Typo should have been:
But Rich did NOT submit his change proposal before the January 22
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

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11447
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 20 February 2011 20:39:31 GMT

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