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: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:17:43 +0000
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
CC: "soohong.park@samsung.com" <soohong.park@samsung.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jay Kishigami <jay@kishigami.net>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <540E99C53248CE468F6F7702588ABA2AA490D20D@A1GTOEMBXV003.gto.a3c.atos.net>
+1 (informative, as my AB mandate starts on 1st of July)
Lets move forward with the changes.
Virginie

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com]
Sent: vendredi 27 juin 2014 21:09
To: Jeff Jaffe; Arthur Barstow; Ralph Swick; ab@w3.org
Cc: GALINDO Virginie; soohong.park@samsung.com; David Singer; Jay Kishigami; public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: RE: Comments on https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html

>, can we have an AB consensus to move
>forward with those changes

I agree with the proposed consensus

Mike
________________________________
From: Jeff Jaffe<mailto:jeff@w3.org>
Sent: 6/27/2014 11:21 AM
To: Arthur Barstow<mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>; Ralph Swick<mailto:swick@w3.org>; ab@w3.org<mailto:ab@w3.org>
Cc: GALINDO Virginie<mailto:Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>; soohong.park@samsung.com<mailto:soohong.park@samsung.com>; David Singer<mailto:singer@apple.com>; Jay Kishigami<mailto:jay@kishigami.net>; public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Comments on https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html
Art is satisfied that Chaals' proposals to address David Singer's
comments addresses his comment #1 in his formal objection.

In Chaals' proposals to the w3process CG, he identifies which of David's
comments should be addressed immediately as they are editorial and which
should be issues for the future.  Noting that there has been no pushback
on the CG list to Chaals' proposals, can we have an AB consensus to move
forward with those changes and thereby be in a position to ask for
Director approval of the new process document?

(Separately, Ralph has worked with Art to resolve the other comments of
his formal objection.)

Jeff

On 6/25/2014 11:52 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 6/18/14 6:25 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> For some of David's comments below I have raised issues. For those I
>> believe are truly editorial, I have said what I propose to do - this
>> is open to discussion, but I have not raised an issue.
>
> FWIW, Chaals' proposals and new Issues sufficiently address my comment
> #1.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
>
>

________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 20:19:26 UTC

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