- From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:48:44 -0800
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
This was likely my fault, directly or indirectly, in a moment of optimism when it looked like we were all agreeing and just needed to write the agreement down. Real life turned out not to be so simple. Bottom line: Roy is right. Issue-10 is not closed. I will refrain from fixing it, but add my voice to Roy's. Aleecia On Jan 22, 2013, at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > 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 Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:49:12 UTC