- From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:58:46 -0500
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- CC: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
It would be helpful (not to mention polite) for you not to attempt to take my words out of context. The fact is, I absolutely don't agree that the extension was right - and if it is in fact within the w3c rules to extend a charter without discussion and over the objection of members, then -- with all due respect -- you may consider changing those rules if you want to have a credible process. The legitimacy of this extension is at question -- and will be the subject of scrutiny by all of those who will need to implement these 'voluntary' rules. Incidentally, a large swath of those who implement are not part of the w3c and not privy to the W3C's rather unique operating procedures. On 3/8/13 10:30 AM, "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org> wrote: >On 2013-03-08, at 16:00 +0100, Alan Chapell ><achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote: > >> Extension of the charter under these circumstances may very well have >>been >> within W3C rules > >Glad you agree with that. > >> --- was it the right thing to do? > >The right thing to do at this juncture is to look forward and get the >work done. > > > >
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 18:59:26 UTC