Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
> On 06.04.2010 23:30, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Sam Ruby<>  wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2010 05:10 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> I'm not going to formally object to this interesting segue in the
>>>> procedure, but I believe that anyone that writes one counter to all is
>>>> doing so with the assumption that the co-chairs and group have already
>>>> made a decision regardless of the strengths of the argument. This
>>>> assumption is more likely trigger me to file a Formal Objection if my
>>>> changes are rejected.
>>> Issues 1 and 2 were decided together.
>> Same counter-proposal? There's been so many lately, I can't remember
>> what was what.
>> ...
> Issue #1 was about the protocol used for a/@ping. Issue #2 was about UI
> requirements.
> Roy wrote a change proposal addressing both by removing the feature
> completely.
> Best regards, Julian

Ah. Not quite the same as my situation, then.

I guess if folks want to toss a one-size-fits-all counter back, will
probably make my job of editing my change proposals based on feedback
a whole lot easier.

Thanks Julian


Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:53:34 UTC