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

Re: Updated [Was: UI Mockup [Was: CfC: create a public list to announce new publications; deadline Oct 15]]

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:41:57 +0300
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Cc: public-w3process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
Message-Id: <57301415644917@webcorp02f.yandex-team.ru>


10.11.2014, 19:35, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>:
> On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:

>> šNigel made his original post about the lack of let's say "guidelines" nearly six weeks ago. It would be good if we could get to a point where proposals (like this one) that don't get blocked by "OMG, will doing X risk loosing full member Y?"
>
> Did someone actually say that during the course of these discussions? I may have missed that comment.

I don't think it matters if they did or not. Although we could waste lots of time discussing it.

> What I do know is that the request happened just before TPAC, when the staff is very busy. Since TPAC
> I have been working on this tool and getting feedback on this public list.
>> šjust get implemented (and iterated if/when necessary). As such, I recommend you put this service online toady and let's see what happens. I note too that since Nigel's request, 7 LCWDs have been published and thus not announced. I can't tell from a first level scan of TR/tr-date-drafts/ if any FPWDs or PD2014 pre-CRs have been published since šhis posting.
>>
>> š[BTW, it's a bug that tr-date-drafts does not explicitly identify FPWDs
>
> I can ask the Systems Team to add "First" to the status column.

Actually, identifying the FP+90day draft would be a pretty useful thing to do, since that is the draft that gets patent commitments if published.

>> šand pre-CRs. And speaking of "pre-CR" that seems like a horrible name (and I acknowledge I could be the originator)].
>>
>> šAnyhow, as to this service, I would separate the WGs and IGs into separate lists (it's a bit funky to see all of the WGs in alpha order and the IGs appended at the end, although addressing this is certainly not a showstopper.)
>
> Ok, I've split them.
>> šI also recommend all XG Final Report publications get announced on this list. (I think this is especially important if the Consortium does indeed move to a work flow where the creation of a new WG is blocked until all of its REC track deliverables have some type of "spec" available.)
>
> I'm not sure I understand the parenthetical comment.

There is a proposal. I don't think you need to understand it since its a hypothetical for the moment, but I agree with Art that CGBG final reports being published to this list would be useful, given they may become inputs to WGs.

>>> šAnything else to add to the FAQ?
>> šI recommend you move the FAQ to a wiki document the `community` can evolve over time.
>
> Fantasai argued against this. I propose we leave in one place for now and see how it evolves.
+1

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 18:42:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC