- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:02:05 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 --- Comment #25 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-08-17 16:02:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > > And I'm willing to issue a formal objection if this proceeds without a clear > understanding of what it means to take something from the Rec track and put it > into the W3C's new incubator effort. You can't object to "proceeding", in particular, you can't object to the opening of a bug report or even to the initial resolution proposed by an editor, which I will note hasn't even happened yet. You can object to a decision[1]. For that to happen, there will need to be an initial resolution, an issue raised, an opportunity for people to prepare change proposals, and ultimately a decision. At a minimum, that process will ensure that the Director has the input of the WG on the matter, including a list of concrete proposals to chose from. My may be able to object to the creation of a community group -- I honestly don't know as the WG was not involved in that action. In any case, a Formal Objection is likely to be unnecessary in this instance as Editing APIs are called out in the charter, and therefore the topic will undoubtedly come up. [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 16:02:07 UTC