Re: Editor/spec status check and April 8th call?

Thanks both (& Zakim)

---

> On 8 Apr 2015, at 13:50, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 8 April 2015 at 13:26, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi - can anyone confirm if we’re meeting at 15:00 GMT (UTC) or 15:00 BST?
>> Many thanks, Jeremy
> 
> I was assuming 1h12m from now, i.e. 3pm in "on my laptop's time
> display" zone. Which seems to be 3pm BST aka UTC+1.
> 
> Zakim seems to agree:
> 
> danbri: zakim, this will be CSVW
> 
> Zakim: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within
> the next hour, danbri
> 
> Ah yes, I see Ivan confirms. Sending this anyway as backup.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>> On 7 Apr 2015, at 20:51, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi - I'll be dialling for tomorrow's call ... back from vacation :-)
>> 
>> I have two outstanding issues [1][2] assigned to me that I should get
>> resolved tomorrow. Nothing major - so 16th April looks good.
>> 
>> Jeremy
>> 
>> [1]: https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/445
>> [2]: https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/459
>> 
>>> On 7 April 2015 at 15:05, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dan,
>>> 
>>> as far as I am concerned, all the issues I raised during my review are
>>> closed. Ie, if we can handle, both decision wise and editorially, Jeni's
>>> comments tomorrow, I am o.k. to publish next week.
>>> 
>>> Ivan
>>> 
>>>> On 07 Apr 2015, at 15:36 , Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Last week Ivan, Gregg and I had an informal call.
>>>> 
>>>> Super brief IRC log here, http://www.w3.org/2015/04/01-csvw-irc
>>>> 
>>>> We talked somewhat more than scribed, but the main point of record was
>>>> made by Ivan:
>>>> 
>>>> "we have to be a little more administrative (final reviews etc) in
>>>> coming period.
>>>> coming back next week, we might be ready to have a publication on the
>>>> following tuesday.
>>>> … aiming at 16th April currently. unless Jeremy or Jeni hits a major
>>>> issue, it should be doable."
>>>> 
>>>> Jeni/Jeremy, how are things looking editorially from your side?
>>>> 
>>>> Those of us who are around - let's have a call tomorrow.
>>>> 
>>>> Checking in on Github, I see 5 items from Jeni listed as requiring
>>>> teleconf attention (and none from anyone else):
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Requires+telcon+discussion%2Fdecision%22
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/444 "Should tables have a schema
>>>> annotation?"
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/445 "Row annotations in conversion
>>>> specifications"
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/446 "Inherited property annotations
>>>> on columns"
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/448 "Is specifying default metadata
>>>> necessary?"
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/449 "HTTP headers vs dialects"
>>>> 
>>>> All of these have had some discussion in Github. Assuming we manage to
>>>> reach a resolution on each before or during tomorrow's call, does
>>>> publishing on April 16th still sound feasible? Other editors - can you
>>>> confirm that you have no further issues requiring teleconf discussion?
>>>> 
>>>> Dan
>>>> 
>>>> (around tomorrow, happy to chair)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>> 
>>

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 13:00:07 UTC