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: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:57:43 -0400
Message-ID: <539F4C37.3090208@w3.org>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, public-w3process@w3.org

On 6/16/2014 3:50 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>
> On 2014-06-16 11:09, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 6/16/14 1:30 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>>> I assume you are referring to comments that came in as part of the 
>>> AC review. 
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Those comments appear to me largely editorial and so can be fixed as 
>>> part of the usual process of considering the AC review and not hold 
>>> up approval. 
>>
>> Well perhaps so but my understanding is there was agreement this list 
>> would be used for tasks such as comment processing. As such, my 
>> expectation is the group will review the comments.
>
> I'd think with those comments that anything new that would actually 
> change the process (e.g. wanting some other old text in the process 
> changed that we hadn't been looking at) would likely turn into an 
> issue for this group to look at for the next revision.  But, for 
> something that's clearly an editorial clarification (a sentence could 
> be worded better), I don't think we should keep on iterating through 
> this long process.  i.e. not go back to this list for minor wording 
> review, then do another last call review, then do another long AC 
> review.   That would be months down the road until we're back where we 
> are now.
>
> I like the chapter 7 revisions, very much like that it was done 
> largely in this CG - but this is at a stage where the AC wouldn't be 
> reviewing the comments for editorial changes either -- it would be 
> part of the Director's decision on consensus based on the AC review.  
> The AC could then appeal the decision if it objected.   I think we 
> should finish this up - and not have it drag on - and start a new 
> round of revisions.

To clarify the intended process (prior to the Formal Objection).

If any of the comments were purely editorial, we intended to make 
changes as part of the Director's Decision.  So we would get the 
benefits of the comment immediately.

Since anything substantive would take weeks to agree and then require 
another Last Call and another AC Review, we had intended to address 
those as part of next year's revision.  As you point out, some of the 
"historical" issues would be substantive.

Due to the Formal Objection, the Director needs to determine for which 
issues (if any) we should do that.  I also called Art to see if I could 
get clarification whether the Objection applied to all of the Issues 
(before hopping on a plane), but we have not yet connected.

>
>
>>
>> -AB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 19:57:50 UTC

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