Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Call for counter proposals

Hi Mark,

If you want, you can update the existing Change Proposalon this topic with whichever of the information below you think is relevant. Also, hopefully any new testing will take less than a month, so we'll have that info available once all proposals are submitted.

Regards,
Maciej


On Sep 15, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Hi Sam,
> 
> Thanks for the heads-up.
> 
> A couple of points:
> 
>  - AIUI Michael is still in the process of testing the registry, and has some action items to complete before those requests can continue. Please tell me if your understanding is different.
> 
>  - Ian's testing ran into an issue where some of his references were to his personal Web site; we didn't feel this met the bar for a stable reference. 
> 
> The underlying requirements are that if someone is hit by a bus, there's some process in place for continuity (such as would be the case with a community Web site, but not a personal one), and that there's a some sense that the specifications, if they change, will do so in a way that won't invalidate current uses. 
> 
> E.g., if someone from the Microformats community wanted to register a new relation tomorrow that's documented on that site, the reference shouldn't be an issue.
> 
>  - Likewise, Ian's testing ran into another issue whereby their references were to the WHAT-WG site, rather than the W3C. We asked for clarification from the W3C, and based upon that discussion refused registration, because the W3C is doing active work in this area. This is the only reason those requests were refused.
> 
>  - It's been our intent for a while to set up a Web site to aid in the registration of link relations (and perhaps other IANA registries). There's pretty broad agreement that the process is difficult to understand for people who don't do it every day, so the idea is to "overlay" the IANA process with Web forms, bug queues, etc. so that people can understand what they need to do as well as the status of their request easily. I'd stress that the idea here is not to replace the processes defined for the various registries, but just to make them more user-friendly (e.g., it shouldn't be necessary to subscribe to the mailing list).
> 
> We've just started work on this site; if anyone in the HTML community would like to help (in big or small ways), we'd welcome it very much; please ping me for more info.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> P.S. If this doesn't get through to the mailing list, could you please forward it? Thanks.
> 
> 
> On 16/09/2010, at 12:48 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> On 02/23/2010 11:31 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> 
>>> So it seems like we have rough consensus on this proposal, and also
>>> rough consensus to test the new registry before adopting it. Currently
>>> the owner if this issue is listed as "Chairs":
>>> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-027>. We do not
>>> want to have an issue on our hands indefinitely, where the actual next
>>> action is not ours.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, we would like to ask for a volunteer to take the action to
>>> test the registry. Given the estimated time frames for this registry,
>>> that action would have a due date 5-6 weeks from now. If we do not find
>>> a volunteer within a week, we will proceed with a Call for Consensus on
>>> this Change Proposal.
>> 
>> Much has happened since Maciej sent this email.  The registry was established.  Testing occurred.  People differ as to how the results from that testing should be interpreted.
>> 
>> At the present time, we continue to have only one change proposal.  At this time, the chairs are requesting counter proposals.  If no counter proposals are received by October 17th, we will proceed with a call for consensus on the proposal that we do have:
>> 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1006.html
>> 
>> - Sam Ruby
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>

Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 07:18:56 UTC