Doug, On Mar 26, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Doug Turner wrote: > matt, I am confused. Sorry for the confusion, I thought I spelled out clear enough what was going to happen in the thread on issue-2 [1]. > > Issue-2: Sounds like the tracker for the geopriv proposal we voted > down. if so, can we close > Issue-4: Sounds like the same as issue-2. Is this a dup? > > We all have spent dozens of hours on Geopriv. We voted it down at > the f2f. UAs that were present were either on the fence or directly > in opposition. We resolved to publish without including the proposal [2], but that's good enough. I'm fine with the chairs closing it (especially given John's message earlier [3]), but as I said before we still need the trail. > Maybe the only real issue that our WG has is to respond to the IETF > letter, and move on. Agreed. -M [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Mar/0121 [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-geolocation-minutes#publish [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Mar/0117Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 18:34:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:52 UTC