- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:15:23 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 --- Comment #26 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2011-08-17 16:15:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #25) > (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. OK, that's cool. > > 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. > I definitely agree with separating out the editing API from HTML5, and perhaps publishing it as another document in the HTML WG. But completely taking it out of the group, and off the Rec track...this move just doesn't make sense. So what is happening next and where, Sam? > [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 16:15:24 UTC