- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 22:41:34 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTimZ6V_6K=Dg-UqDh8DEhxVB+HQrgWEaaGDib8sp@mail.gmail.com>
hi Sam, i disagree and would like to object, whats the process for that? regards stevef On 1 February 2011 22:32, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 02/01/2011 05:18 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote: > >> hi sam, >> >> what you cited says >> >> - Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration - all >> issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued by this date >> Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will be treated >> as a Last Call comment. >> >> this was not an escalation, it was already a bug that had been >> escalated, it was already an issue, a call for proposals had already >> been issued. >> > > And in that call for proposals we said "If no Change Proposals are written > by December 10th, 2010 this issue will be closed without prejudice". And > none were offered. > > And we further gave until January 22nd for the issue to be re-escallated in > time to be considered for Last Call. and this too was not done. > > > the timeline says: >> >> Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal >> Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without prejudice >> and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a later version >> of HTML. >> >> the issue has one change proposal. >> >> it would be good if the chairs followed their own rules. >> > > We got consensus on the dates, gave plenty of time, and it is decidedly NOT > the case that each of the 198 closed issues can be converted into a last > call blocker simply by creating a change proposal. > > Nothing I have said precludes anybody from proposing counter proposals at > this time or for people to work towards amicable consensus. All that is > being stated at this time is that resolving this issue is not considered a > prerequisite for advancing to last call. > > regards >> Stevef >> >> On 1 February 2011 21:57, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net >> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote: >> >> On 02/01/2011 04:28 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote: >> >> Can the chairs please explain why it has not been re-opened as a >> pre >> last call issue when it was filed prior to the cutoff and closed >> without >> prejudice due to lack of change proposal. >> >> >> All escalations after Jan 22, 2011 will be treated as a Last Call >> comment: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >> >> >> >> -- >> with regards >> >> Steve Faulkner >> Technical Director - TPG >> >> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | >> www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | >> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner> >> >> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - >> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ >> > >> >> Web Accessibility Toolbar - >> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html> >> > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 22:43:30 UTC