Re: CfC: close ISSUE-119 rel-repetition by amicable resolution

Hi Ian,

The Chairs discussed this. As usual, we are willing to grant reasonable extensions for a fixed term, but not unbounded extensions or extensions depending on an external event. We can offer the following options:

1) You can write a counter-proposal that gives multiple alternatives depending on how 118 is resolved.
2) You can ask for a fixed period of additional time to write a counter-proposal (up to a month is probably reasonable) and wait for a decision.
3) You can decline to enter a counter-proposal or state a deadline, in which case we'll consider the existing proposal for 119 to be adopted.

Please let us know within a week which you prefer. Apologies for the delay in responding.

For our part, we'll prioritize publishing a decision on issue 118.


On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 12/01/2010 07:34 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> The current status for this issue:
>>> We have a single change proposal to make the "up" link relation
>>> compatible with the existing IANA definition:
>>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit alternate Change
>>> Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details), in case
>>> anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different change than
>>> the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
>>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by January
>>> 12th, 2011, we will proceed to evaluate the change proposal that we have
>>> received to date.
>> As we have received no counter-proposals or alternate proposals, the chairs
>> are issuing a call for consensus on the proposal that we do have.  If no
>> objections are raised to this call by 26 January 2011, we will direct the
>> editor to make the proposed change.  If anybody would like to raise an
>> objection during this time, we strongly encourage them to accompany their
>> objection with a concrete and complete change proposal.
> My apologies. I thought I had e-mailed about this a few days ago, but it 
> turns out I had sent my e-mail to instead of 
>! Maciej can confirm that I discussed this with him on 
> IRC at the time, though.
> I was about to try to write a CP for -119, when I realised I couldn't: it 
> depends on the resolution to -118:
> If -118 is resolved in favour of changing the definitions for up="", -119 
> may either be moot or substantially changed.
> If -118 is resolved in favour of removing up="", then -119's resolution 
> would likely need entirely different solutions than have been considered 
> so far.
> If -118 is resolved in favour of the status quo, then the explanation of 
> which arguments were considered convincing would significantly influence 
> how a CP for -119 should be written.
> Since I am rather limited in terms of what time I have available for 
> writing CPs, I would rather not spend hours writing a CP that was either 
> rendered moot or would subsequently have to be entirely rewritten.
> Therefore, I would like to request that the chairs delay issue 119 until 
> such time as issue 118 is resolved.
> Apologies for my earlier mistake which meant that this request did not go 
> to the list in time for the deadline.
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 18:10:18 UTC