- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:41:06 -0500
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, 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 wrote: > I was going to reply to this message with some additional suggestions > for steps forward but noted that "public-html" is not CCd. > > Before I do reply-all and add public-html - is there any objection to > doing so? > > I'll wait for a day or for to/cc folks to respond no objection, > whichever comes first. If the reply involves steps forward, I not only don't object to cc:'ing public-html, I encourage it. > Thanks, > > Tantek - Sam Ruby > 2010/2/25 Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>: >> 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 18:41:41 UTC