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. Thanks, Tantek 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 > > -- http://tantek.com/
