- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:13:34 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
On 06/23/2011 02:36 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-06-23 20:10, Sam Ruby wrote: >> ... >> As an example, I do see "WebGL has some major security issues and this >> change is nothing more than addressing the tip of the ice berg while >> ignoring the rest. I think it is more dangerous to add than not.", but >> if that is more of a position than an argument. Please explain why you >> think it is dangerous, with specifics. Furthermore, it is not clear that >> WebGL is the only intended beneficiary for this change. >> ... > > a) I'm proxying, as you know. > > b) How would I know what the "intended beneficiaries" are when there is > no discussion about the feature? You are welcome, and even encouraged, to have a discussion. The normal life cycle for a bug is that it will get a response and that response can be escalated. You can also use this mailing list or other venues to have that discussion. I won't speak for my co-chairs, but until you can identify a clear problem with this change, I will not support the revert request. By that I mean this change itself, not with your perception of how the process ought to operate. Feel free to cite this change if you wish to advocate that the process by changed; but the reverse is not true: until the process is changed it is a misuse of the revert procedure to request a change in anticipation of change to the Decision Policy that hasn't happened yet. > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 19:14:07 UTC