Solicitation of objections (was: premature resolution of bug 11984)

On 02/05/2011 05:33 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 05.02.2011 02:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> ...
>>> I think it is a separate issue. As such, I've filed a bug for Philip:
>> Ok, fixed.
>> ...
> I disagree with this resolution, and therefor ask the chairs to instruct
> the editor to revert the changes.
> To those who didn't follow before: this introduces media type sniffing
> for <video>.

At this point, the chairs are asking the WG if anyone else wants to see 
this reverted.  If you have a technical (i.e., non-procedural) objection 
to the approach taken by the resolution to this bug, we are asking you 
to indicate such by adding a brief comment to bug itself.

Possible outcomes include:

*) the editor voluntarily agreeing to revert the change and REOPEN the
    bug based on the technical feedback.

*) the chairs determining that this change is controversial and likely
    to reduce rather than increase consensus and/or that the change
    represents a new features that should not be added after the cutoff
    as it doesn't meet the bar of "particularly exceptional

*) neither the editor nor the chairs taking action on this bug at this
    time; in which case we will likely need to reassess impact of this
    change on issue-145.

If you do have input to provide, we would appreciate it being given
before the time of next week's telecon, as this will be a topic of
discussion to be covered in the "Other Business" item on the agenda.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 20:55:02 UTC