That is unfortunate. As I am sure you are aware we usually do things via consensus and would take a vote on something like this. It is very rare (in my observation) that one person speaks for the entire community. I assume everyone will back it, but still it is better to do things the "right way". I will wait until tonight until making any decision to give everyone else the change to way in.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > On 10/06/14 02:13, Ryan Baxter wrote: >> >> Thanks for reaching out Andy. Is there any way we can get an >> extension on the deadline? I would like to put this out for a vote to >> the Shindig community but we usually give everyone 3 days to review >> and vote. Since there is a very short runway on this I am not sure >> everyone will have time to review. >> > > Not really - it's determined by W3C and because they have announced a > deadline they will be keen to stick to it. > > This is just a request for support - it does not actually commit the project > to do anything specific. > > If you are implementing a spec, or a part of a spec, then not ticking the > first 3 "intends" would be routine. > > You can include a brief (one sentence-ish) advertising for your work. > > Andy > > >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> W3C are looking for support in creating an Open Social WG. >>> >>> ASF is a member of W3C and can express such support (I'm the W3C AC rep >>> for >>> Apache - I push web buttons). >>> >>> I've had a request from Harry Halpin to add support - if this projects >>> wants >>> me to go ahead and express support, please let me know - the deadline is >>> 23:59, Boston time on 2014-06-10. >>> >>> the question are below: >>> >>> Activity: >>> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-activity-proposal.html >>> Working Group: >>> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html >>> Interst Group: >>> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-ig-charter.html >>> >>> The survey covers: >>> >>> Q1::Support for the Proposal >>> >>> (choose one - can add a comment): >>> >>> My organization: >>> * supports this Activity Proposal as is. >>> >>> * suggests changes to this Activity Proposal, but supports the proposal >>> whether or not the changes are adopted (your details below). >>> >>> * suggests changes to this Activity Proposal, and only supports the >>> proposal >>> if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection] (your details below). >>> >>> * opposes this Activity Proposal and requests that this group be closed >>> [Formal Objection] (your details below). >>> * abstains from this review. >>> >>> >>> >>> Q2:: Support for Deliverables of the group >>> (choose any that apply - can add a comment) >>> >>> My organization: >>> * intends to review drafts as they are published and send comments. >>> * intends to develop experimental implementations and send experience >>> reports (your details below). >>> * intends to develop products based on this work (your details below). >>> * intends to apply this technology in our operations. >>> * would be interested in participating in any press activity connected >>> with >>> this group. >>> >>> Andy >>> VP W3C Relations. >>> >
