Re: Path forward... (RESPONSE REQUESTED)

Chris, 

just to prepare the clarification discussion tomorrow (see agenda): 

On Tuesday 23 July 2013 17:26:09 Chris Mejia wrote:
> I echo Alan's concern on process.  In Sunnyvale, as I supported the
> approach to "commit to a hard deadline and then re-evaluate that
> deadline if it became apparent that we were going to miss it," I and
> others emphasized that it would have to be a working group decision
> to extend— that it would not be at the sole discretion of the
> co-chairs nor W3C staff to extend on their own accord.  

I do not understand your concern here. Do you want to extend the 26 July 
deadline for change proposals? What is your very concrete suggestion? 


> At that time,
> co-chairs and staff supported my stated position, which I think was a
> responsible choice.  But now it seems that you are once again veering
> away from W3C process and veering away from your commitment to the
> working group to discuss extension before unilaterally making the
> choice for us.  

What extension? If you want an extension, please clearly identify and 
justify. I don't think chairs and W3C staff just make arbitrary 
decisions on their own. Ok, sometimes it feels like it, but I really 
don't think they do. 

> From the emails this week, it seems quite obvious
> that that TPWG (both camps) want to have a discussion on processing
> moving forward on this week's call— why won't you entertain this
> discussion?

I think it is on the Agenda that Matthias has sent out. 

> It's a reasonable request, isn't it?  For the record,
> these are not a rhetorical questions— I would appreciate a thoughtful
> and comprehensive answer— this hard working group deserves as much.

I hear you but would like you to be more specific in your request. 


 --Rigo

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 18:07:43 UTC