On Aug 25, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 08/25/2010 06:28 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: >>> I'm volunteering to write a change proposal for Issue 117. >> >> In that case, I encourage you to rejoin the working group. > > Is this a requirement? I can understand that it is simpler to only have > members propose change proposals--they need to be shepherded through the > decision process. I can withhold my submission for a time to see if others > volunteer. > > As is obvious, I am intensely interested in HTML5. Frankly, though, I don't > feel comfortable with the HTML WG. I'm not sure re-joining would be good for > myself, or for the group. I get the impression that I am an unwelcome > disruption. > > If this is a requirement for change proposals, I need to think on it.
I can understand your hesitation. But on the other hand, it can also be difficult for the group if a non-Member of the WG is participating extensively in WG activities, beyond the level of just commenting on spec issues. > >>> I asked to re-open Issue 106[1]. As I stated, I believe that the >>> longdesc issue--including making obsolete an attribute that was valid in >>> HTML4, without any intervening period of deprecation--is new >>> information, as is the new interest in this topic. If you do, I will >>> also write a change proposal for this item, too. >> >> As issue 106 was closed without prejudice, new information is not a >> requirement. >> > That's good to know. I hope you do re-open it, then. Perhaps after Issue 41, > or some of the others are resolved. For ISSUE-106, or any other issue that was closed without prejudice, we will reopen if we receive a completed Change Proposal. I think the same concerns would apply about a non-WG member writing a proposal. Regards, Maciej
