W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Revert request r7023

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:30:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4F685C28.4090305@intertwingly.net>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 03/20/2012 06:12 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> I personally have put aside other work to get the specs I edit ready on
> time for publication, only to be told again, at the last minute the
> urgency was a mirage.
> The  process appears somewhat farcical as nobody has even hinted that
> they will produce a change proposal for Issue 201,  The likely person to
> produce a proposal (Hixie) does not appear to be interested in
> partcipating in the process, yet heartbeat publication has been deferred
> a second time when it is already way over due.
> Why haven't the chairs made a public call to hixie and co to ask them if
> there is any intention to produce a proposal? Surely a yes/no answer
> cannot be that hard to elicit? If there is no intention the working
> group could move on.

We have a public call for proposals on issue 201, and I have already 
stated that the next step on that should we not obtain any other 
proposals is a call for consensus and should THAT pass, we will ask for 
a revert.

Meanwhile, the current focus of the chairs on making proposals as to how 
the decision policy should be revised to prevent situations such as 
these in the future.  At the current time, it looks likely that you will 
see progress on this front in the next 72 hours.

> regards
> Stevef

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 10:30:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:22 UTC