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

Re: [DocumentReview] [Was: Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 10:14:51 -0500
Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E7A9FE3F-4FD1-45A0-BA3A-428D8E8A0AF3@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>

On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/1/14 10:10 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Virginie agreed to lead a "Spec systematization and consistency" effort (see [2]) and it seems to me the scope of that effort could include fleshing out some "wide review BPs and guidelines". If that effort considers such a doc as out of scope, I would be willing to help create such a doc (and would welcome your input, as well as others).
> 
> I went ahead and created a first draft. Comments of course are welcome but direct updating is definitely preferred:
> 
>  <https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview>

Thanks, Art. I've added a FAQ entry to the transition doc that links to that wiki.

   "Without a "Last Call" signal, how do groups get review under the new Process?"
  https://www.w3.org/wiki/ProcessTransition2014#Without_a_.22Last_Call.22_signal.2C_how_do_groups_get_review_under_the_new_Process.3F

Ian




--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 15:14:58 UTC

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