RE: CfC: Close ISSUE-203 media-descriptions by Amicable Resolution

Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > I object to the change proposed in [1]. I apologize for missing the
> > deadline on this CfC; I was attending another working group's face to
> > face meeting and didn't notice this email.
> >
> >> If anybody would like to raise an objection during this time, we
> will
> >> require them to accompany their objection with a concrete and
> complete
> >> change proposal.
> >
> > Unfortunately I don't have a concrete and complete change proposal at
> > this time; my HTML WG time has been spent on other change proposals
> for
> > other open issues. I can commit to producing a change proposal for
> > ISSUE-203 by July 10th if the chairs will grant me an extension.
> 
> I'll simply note that the original call for counters[1] went out on the
> 9th of May, so we normally wouldn't grant an extension without a change
> proposal or even a rationale.
> 
> That being said, the co-chairs discussed it and are willing to grant
> this extension this one time.
> 

So to recap:

An Apple employee, who directly reports to one of the 3 Co-Chairs (the same
Co-Chair, I might note, who first posted the CfC on June 13th), "objects" to
a Change Proposal 6 days after the deadline of June 20th, based not on any
stated technical rationale, but rather because his employer has successfully
managed to make that employee an effective bottleneck on forward progress on
a number of outstanding Issues within the HTML WG (a.k.a. he's been too
busy). There is no indication of what (if anything) he finds contentious
about the existing CP, only that "he objects". (Could it be NIH?)

This Apple employee further states that he has no idea on how or what he
will be hoping to propose as a counter proposal (and in fact is asking if
anyone else can help him), has not engaged in any dialog around this topic
prior to yesterday, and now needs 2 additional weeks to bring forward an
Alternative Change Proposal so that we can then go through the additional
steps of thrust, {delay} and parry (a.k.a. "online discussion") in an effort
to avoid a WBS survey; and after that protracted effort is engaged upon, we
still have a possibility of a WBS Survey.

Based upon the above information, the Chairs make the extraordinary decision
to go counter to their own published Processes and Procedures and extend an
extension "this one time" to an actor who has already demonstrated that he
is overwhelmed with existing work-effort that this Working Group is waiting
on (many of them, coincidentally, accessibility related). A final decision
and decision date on this topic is now unknown, with the only known next
milestone being July 10th.

Have I missed anything?

Intrepid readers can draw their own conclusions.

JF

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 19:16:54 UTC