W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > October 2004

RE : Telecon participation record

From: NANNI Marco RD-BIZZ-SOP <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:07:56 +0200
Message-ID: <BBBE5BAA3B351C488C415EA662EA884001484196@FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>


Because of some personal problems I missed a long period of the WG work even if I have tried to follow from far the works (above all OEP,ADTF and WRLD). I will do my best to make up for lost time reading the last exchanges, and trying to be more active partipating in next telecons.

Anyway, more generally, concerning the FT particpation, I hope we will find a solution to be more deeply implied in the WG work before the end of the year or for the wery beginning of 2005

Best regards


-----Message d'origine-----
De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] De la part de Ralph R. Swick
Envoyé : jeudi 30 septembre 2004 16:19
À : public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Objet : Telecon participation record

As requested at the 16 Sep telecon [1], here is my table noting who has attended teleconferences.  I do not see an obvious pattern between the 1400 UTC and 1800 UTC times.

Legend: 'P' indicates the individual was present for at least part of the telecon. 'r' indicates the individual sent regrets.  (Standing regrets from Deb for the 1400 UTC slot are not recorded.)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0075.html

Per the W3C Process, to remain in good standing in a Working Group [2], participants are expected to:

    * attend most meetings of the Working Group.
    * provide deliverables or drafts of deliverables in a timely fashion.
    * be familiar with the relevant documents of the Working Group, including minutes of past meetings.
    * follow discussions on relevant mailing list(s).

So, people who have not attended or sent regrets for more than 3 of the past 10 meetings (making allowances for the date of appointment to the WG) are at risk of being no longer in good standing.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/groups.html#good-standing
Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 09:08:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:40 UTC