Re: volunteering for change proposal for issue 117

On Aug 25, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 08/25/2010 06:28 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> I'm volunteering to write a change proposal for Issue 117.
>> In that case, I encourage you to rejoin the working group.
> Is this a requirement? I can understand that it is simpler to only have members propose change proposals--they need to be shepherded through the decision process. I can withhold my submission for a time to see if others volunteer.
> As is obvious, I am intensely interested in HTML5. Frankly, though, I don't feel comfortable with the HTML WG. I'm not sure re-joining would be good for myself, or for the group. I get the impression that I am an unwelcome disruption.
> If this is a requirement for change proposals, I need to think on it.

I can understand your hesitation. But on the other hand, it can also be difficult for the group if a non-Member of the WG is participating extensively in WG activities, beyond the level of just commenting on spec issues.

>>> I asked to re-open Issue 106[1]. As I stated, I believe that the
>>> longdesc issue--including making obsolete an attribute that was valid in
>>> HTML4, without any intervening period of deprecation--is new
>>> information, as is the new interest in this topic. If you do, I will
>>> also write a change proposal for this item, too.
>> As issue 106 was closed without prejudice, new information is not a requirement.
> That's good to know. I hope you do re-open it, then. Perhaps after Issue 41, or some of the others are resolved.

For ISSUE-106, or any other issue that was closed without prejudice, we will reopen if we receive a completed Change Proposal. I think the same concerns would apply about a non-WG member writing a proposal.


Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 00:25:54 UTC