Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-203 media-descriptions by Amicable Resolution

Hi Sam,

> Yes, this could delay -- but not avoid -- this issue going to
> survey.

The Call for Consensus deadline had passed without objection. Paul
stated in last week's telco minutes [1]
<quote>
Paul: didn't see objections for Cfc on ISSUE-203
... Chairs will evaluate and resolve the issue, then transmit to editors
<unquote>

So I don't understand, why would ISSUE-203 have gone to survey?

> Ted has been asked, by the chairs, to help out on a number of issues

Again, may I ask why and for what purpose? Have the chairs asked him
to write counter proposals to the accessibility task force's
proposals? I am trying to understand all of this.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/06/21-html-wg-minutes.html#item04

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 03:16 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>>
>>
>> This Apple employee further states that he has no idea on how or what he
>> will be hoping to propose as a counter proposal (and in fact is asking if
>> anyone else can help him), has not engaged in any dialog around this topic
>> prior to yesterday, and now needs 2 additional weeks to bring forward an
>> Alternative Change Proposal so that we can then go through the additional
>> steps of thrust, {delay} and parry (a.k.a. "online discussion") in an
>> effort
>> to avoid a WBS survey; and after that protracted effort is engaged upon,
>> we
>> still have a possibility of a WBS Survey.
>
>
> I object to this characterization.  It is expressed in a manner that we will
> not tolerate on this list:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines
>
> I'll note that you could have made the same point in a professional manner.
>  Yes, this could delay -- but not avoid -- this issue going to survey.
>
>> Have I missed anything?
>
>
> Ted has been asked, by the chairs, to help out on a number of issues; and
> when he has done so the results are generally positive.  Because we have
> prioritized his workload, it made sense to give some latitude on an issue
> that we did not include in that prioritization.
>
>> JF
>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>



-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 20:33:44 UTC