W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2016

RE: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:40:09 -0400
To: <tink@tink.uk>, "'Chaals McCathie Nevile'" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "'public-webapps WG'" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0a8101d1db8a$81c312b0$85493810$@gmail.com>
+1 to publish

​​​​​



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog


-----Original Message-----
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk] 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 6:15 AM
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>; public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

Reminder that this CFC closes on Thursday 14th July (end of day). If you can take a few minutes to respond through one of the three proposed channels, it will help us identify the work mode that suits the WG best. 
Thanks.

Léonie.

On 05/07/2016 15:15, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
> This is a call for consensus on the proposition:
>
> Publish the current editors' draft of HTML 5.2 - 
> https://w3c.github.io/html/ - as a First Public Working Draft.
>
> Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses are preferred.
> In an effort to find a smoother way to assess consensus, there are 
> three possible mechanisms for feedback, and you should pick the one 
> you find most convenient:
>
> You can provide a response in this email thread.
>
> You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the HTML repo -
> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/515
>
> You can provide a comment or thumbs-up in the issue in the 
> WebPlatformWG repo - https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/43
>
> There is no need to use more than one of these mechanisms, as the 
> chairs will collate the results.
>
> If many people use the issues instead of email, we will likely propose 
> a change to the work mode for assessing consensus.
>
> There will be a separate thread on the merits of any procedural change 
> - please *only* reply to this thread to support or oppose the FPWD 
> publication.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals, for the chairs
>
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 15:40:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:15:03 UTC