W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

Re: w3process-ISSUE-71 (PubRules-WHATWG): Define PubRules for WHATWG references

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 07:50:22 -0600
Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <700649C7-E459-4F15-880A-F942DFE69EFA@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On Dec 6, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

> On 12/6/13 8:41 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/6/13 8:34 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>>> On Dec 6, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Come to think about it, I have a strong preference to use <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/> for all process-related bug and issue tracking including publication rules. Please do NOT bury this Issue in particular in Member-confidential space.
>>>> A new space would be public. But this is still not the right forum.
>> Responsibility for pubrules lies with the comm team, not this group.
> 
> Well that's certainly a bug.
> 
> AB Priority+ take on Pub Rules and make sure related discussions are done in a Public forum

I didn't say the discussions couldn't happen in public. Some do (e.g., spec-prod) and more can.

I said that the comm team has responsibility, not this CG.

Ian


--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                                          +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 13:50:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC