Re: Cancelling meeting today?

In the event of the usual thread silence, is an absence of a reply
confirmation that it is canceled?

If not, and to avoid confusion, who is responsible for clearly
communicating cancelation?
On Aug 25, 2014 5:50 AM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I propose we cancel this meeting but focus heavily on formally closing
> all issues by our next meeting, which is Sept 8th, and then formally
> move to Last Call on Sept 22nd.
>
> The largest outstanding issue is probably the extensibility issue, but
> Mark seems confident the proposal text is extensible.
>
> There is still debate re NUMS being included in the main spec or as an
> extension spec, but I haven't heard any updates from anyone on that
> front.
>
>                  cheers,
>                    harry
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT+zDFAAoJEPgwUoSfMzqcyfgP/1qIi0jrHBwo1mLyELROgd10
> HXZhFWIEU2kwe1srAc3rh7tFI7WuLIk/XLbwX9oBGGjWNn1TWRbRSMyLOEHvBJPz
> ILPAWy/gHRSzlmALUIMLdQ0u+D565zJBqsKWf/aL5Gs7+H51LFNYCU9oYnv69m0L
> RzQOCTLWubIClPzGMuszcJQnT3oqIYoJ7HkxQLlaIj27CkJEvQ9OD4p+QvdIEggk
> wksAL7rG5LnXBN4hg3hrJlVX7JN2rjtof4NtjOS0RUjWVVagmb0/8CRVcHSBeCdY
> QHyBfpr1NrT0iiqgPOrmzR32gcQGSvz5OuQUbQu0EjjfrRoKR96jscPI4S36EX8r
> SuPFxq+h0IIryuK4EE+Lt1/pYWxbUIH6x30MvXQIWumza/S6UpE2dmCXZXH2kzK4
> H4+VYFrw0enmutwcDH5YqVbYiSXR/xh6//d9wrhyvJoFJKmMIOKqgSYyO+8GoI1G
> RMFAzrvnmpsF2uG0orakouuar3mniAFR17M2xsH81l7V2B81kXW9sMP/jVvE2SHT
> e/xQ9jngC34b9sXkAwGcuSEJANMFHHU9Fnbuj/LspzPiNtNtuY67wgpTSsB+CO3T
> DUfHXkGRbwTjcshhbOTsb1bb417UYzTGG9QVYheUjqY9d4MvCUFvdIdGVLv03Ywm
> 8fcmk4inyqUeQEuuN58j
> =0Xz2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>