- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:13:01 -0800
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I was just trying to connect several threads on the definitions of party, first party, and third party and found that ISSUE-10 (What is a first party?) was closed on April 11 (at the DC f2f). That doesn't make any sense -- we have not been able to reach consensus on any of those definitions. So, I looked at the meeting minutes and find that it was closed because the "three proposals under discussion" had roughly the same definitions. Huh? First, the WG has never signed off on any of those proposals, so I don't care if they had rough agreement -- none of them addressed the problems previously raised, they did not result in only one option being chosen in the compliance, and they didn't even come close to consensus. Clearly, the issue is undecided. Second, when an issue is proposed to be closed at a F2F, I expect to see a ping on the mailing list so that those not in attendance (or those who simply looked away for 10 seconds) can review the decision and raise concerns. That did not occur here. In fact, there was nothing to note that the issue had been closed except for the changelog within tracker, which gave me a date, which I guessed was around a meeting, and which I could manually find the minutes based on the URL pattern of the day before. Please reopen ISSUE-10 until there is actual text in the compliance document that survives a call for consensus. Although it is related to ISSUE-60, ISSUE-73, and ISSUE-49, there is no other issue that addresses what is included within the definition of party. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 13:13:26 UTC