W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2014

RE: Comments on https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:07:37 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1402938456721.32100@microsoft.com>
> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/process201405/results#xspec1>

So in essence you're taking David's editorial suggestions and list of bugs in the existing process document and saying that they are must-fix for this version?  That's a reasonable substantive position for you to take, but I don't agree that we (AB or W3M) would be setting a bad example as process steward by deferring them to the next revision of the process doc.  If we don't finalize documents until all comments, even those coming in the AC ballot, are resolved, we are unlikely to ever produce another Recommendation in time for it to be relevant.  The only practical way forward is one manageable revision at a time, deferring hard or late comments until the next revision.  

________________________________________
From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 9:41 AM
To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); public-w3process
Subject: Re: Comments on https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html

On 6/16/14 12:28 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> What unprocessed Last Call comments are you referring to? David
> Singer's comments in the breakout session and AC ballot are
> essentially "PR" comments not "LC" comments.
<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/process201405/results#xspec1>
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 17:08:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC