public-w3process@w3.org from July 2013 by author

Arthur Barstow

• Re: What is "wide review" (Friday, 12 July)
• Re: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document (Thursday, 11 July)
• Re: Scope Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-34 (good standing): Remove the Good Standing rules from the process document? [Process Document] (Monday, 8 July)

Charles McCathie Nevile

• New chapter 7 editor's draft (Tuesday, 23 July)
• Re: The Chapter 7 requirements for issuing a document (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: What is "wide review" (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document (Thursday, 11 July)
• Re: What is "wide review" (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Re: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Scope Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: (Monday, 8 July)
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-35: Clarify "base" document for Technical Reports change requests [Document life cycle (ch 7)] (Monday, 8 July)
• What is "wide review" (Monday, 8 July)

Ian Jacobs

• Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" (Wednesday, 10 July)

Jeff Jaffe

• Re: What is "wide review" (Sunday, 21 July)
• Re: What is "wide review" (Friday, 12 July)
• Re: What is "wide review" (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] (Monday, 8 July)

Larry Masinter

• RE: What is "wide review" (Monday, 29 July)

Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker

• w3process-ISSUE-38 (documenting implementation): Add a should requirement to document known implementation [Document life cycle (ch 7)] (Tuesday, 23 July)
• w3process-ISSUE-37 (generic shoulds): Drop the shoulds for general transitions [Document life cycle (ch 7)] (Saturday, 20 July)
• w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] (Monday, 8 July)
• w3process-ISSUE-35: Clarify "base" document for Technical Reports change requests [Document life cycle (ch 7)] (Monday, 8 July)
• w3process-ISSUE-34 (good standing): Remove the Good Standing rules from the process document? [Process Document] (Monday, 8 July)

Sandro Hawke

• Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" (Thursday, 11 July)
• Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" (Wednesday, 10 July)
• Some comments "Rec Track Process" (Wednesday, 10 July)

Scott K Peterson

• Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] (Monday, 8 July)

Stephen Zilles

• RE: The Chapter 7 requirements for issuing a document (Monday, 22 July)
• The Chapter 7 requirements for issuing a document (Saturday, 20 July)
• RE: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] (Tuesday, 9 July)
• RE: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] (Monday, 8 July)

Steve Zilles

• The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document (Tuesday, 9 July)

Suresh Chitturi

• RE: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document (Wednesday, 10 July)

Wayne Carr

• Re: New chapter 7 editor's draft (Tuesday, 23 July)

Last message date: Monday, 29 July 2013 02:53:59 UTC