- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:44:12 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12029 --- Comment #7 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-02-11 19:44:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Sam, your vague responses are infuriatingly unhelpful and not effective group > leadership nor conducive to efficient use of the working group members' time. You want me to be clear? Fine. I got an email from somebody asking me the origin of this feature. After investigating, I found that it was added to the W3C draft well after after the cut-off, and furthermore to date I have found absolutely no evidence that there was any discussion in the W3 working group about this feature. > > I did not ask for Ian to remove it, and therefore will not ask him to re-add > > it. > > I'm going to assume this is Sam-speak for "atob() and btoa() are not examples > of things that fall into the category of things that the enhanced change > control e-mail applies to, despite it having been listed as an example of such > in comment 0", and will re-add this feature. I did not say anything remotely like that. The chairs are still discussing this, and may very well come to a different conclusion. > It would be lovely if in the future you could be clearer about what you > actually want. Thanks. What I want: features added to the W3C draft to be discussed by the W3C WG. Given that we have bugzilla notification routed to public-html, this can be as simple as requesting that any new feature be recorded in bugzilla. -- 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 Friday, 11 February 2011 19:44:13 UTC