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 <[email protected]>:
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
