- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:31:27 +0000
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTik6tzOE60XG5itY-_SKhGyZiOqKGoAPCSt+ix94@mail.gmail.com>
hi mike, thanks for your detailed explanation. While i consider that the decision by the chairs decision was not based on any explicitly stated process rule. It is now clear that the rule is: Once an issue is closed it loses its status as a pre last call issue The term prejudicial was meant to refer the effect upon the issue's pre-last call status. As in the issue is closed with prejudice (it will no longer be cosnidered as a pre last call issue) I will not pursue this any further as it will be a waste of time. regards stevef On 2 February 2011 06:56, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > I unequivocally support the conclusion that the chairs have communicated to > you, for the reasons they have given to you. I was aware of that conclusion > before it was announced to you and the group -- that is, I was aware of > their conclusion to handle it as a Last Call issue rather than a prec-Last > Call issue -- and I fully agree with that conclusion. > > I do recognize that you disagree with that conclusion and that you've asked > me to review it. I have now reviewed it, and have read the other messages > in this thread, and my response is: I believe that Sam, in his messages, > has made the rationale for their conclusion clear, and I agree with that > rationale as it has been stated. > > That said, if you want me to pursue this further, than I'll let Philippe > know. But I'd like for you to be clear about what you want. It seems to me > that what you've raised is a point of order and that both the chairs and > myself have reviewed that and found there's been no infraction of the rules > in this case. > > However, you've used the word "prejudicial", which seems like quite a > strong word to be using under the circumstances. I'm mot sure what you mean > by it. If you mean that the chairs have been prejudicial by handling it > differently than they would have any point of order raised by any other > member of the group, than I can't say I believe they have been prejudicial > in that way at all. I don't see any evidence at all that the chairs did > anything other than reach a conclusion about this using exactly the same > criteria, in exactly the same manner, that they would have had it been any > other similar request from any other member up the group. > > --Mike > > Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 2011-02-01 23:01 +0000: > > > hi mike, > > > > I want to object to the chairs handling of an issue, i believe their > > handling to be prejudicial in nature and not based upon agreed processes. > > > > the relevant email thread starts here: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0051.html > > > > I would appreciate if you could look into this and advise me on the best > > course of action (if any) to have this reviewed > > > > -- > Michael[tm] Smith > http://people.w3.org/mike > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 08:32:21 UTC