- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:58:40 -0600
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 11:10 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote: [...] > > My main concern is seeing that this moves to resolution. Nothing more. > Nothing less. > > One way to resolve this is to decide that email that you wrote 2.5 years > ago did not gain consensus, note that no changes have been made to it > which will attract a wider consensus, and furthermore note there is wide > sentiment(*) that no change to the spec are required. Closed. Fini. > Done. Motion carries over objections. Never to be discussed again. Right... that was the way I leaned when I initially wrote to Maciej and company in this thread. But since then, I've been looking into whether anyone actually relies on head/@profile**, and it seems that nobody does. So I'm currently leaning toward just letting it go, i.e. not objecting. ** http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Feb/0207.html > The other way to resolve this is for somebody to actually take an action > which is associated with a credible schedule which has a plausible > opportunity to gain consensus. The work that Manu/Tantek/Julian are doing looks fine to me. I'm a little confused about the status of issue-55, but if the people doing the work are happy, then there's no critical need to address my confusion. > Which way would you prefer? > > - Sam Ruby > > (*) Yes, I'm aware of Julian's email: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0870.html > > And believe that we need a change proposal. > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 17:58:42 UTC