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

Re: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 21 October

From: Jay Kishigami <jay@kishigami.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 23:14:38 +0900
Message-ID: <5447BBCE.2050200@kishigami.net>
To: Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, public-w3process@w3.org
CC: ab@w3.org
Hi,
Sorry for regreting. I just check this email now. I entered IRC and 
telephone call on 20th, but failed so...
Best,

Jay

(10/21/2014 Tue 7:58 AM), Steve Zilles wrote:
> The call information for the Tuesday, 21 October, Process Document TF is
>
> Tuesdays14:00-15:00 UTC
> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=08&day=26&year=2014&hour=14&min=00&sec=0&p1=0>(10:00am-11:00am
> Boston local)
> Zakim Bridge+1.617.761.6200 <tel:+1.617.761.6200>, conference code 7762
> ("PROC")
> IRC Channel: #w3process
>
> For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times is:
>
> Pacific US
>
> 	
>
> Eastern US
>
> 	
>
> Central Europe
>
> 	
>
> Japan
>
> 	
>
> Australia
>
> 	
>
> UTC
>
> 7:00
>
> 	
>
> 10:00
>
> 	
>
> 16:00
>
> 	
>
> 23:00
>
> 	
>
> 24:00/0:00
>
> 	
>
> 14:00
>
> The purpose of these meetings has been to agree on the resolution of
> open issues, close them where possible or assign actions to move toward
> closure.
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1.Review Open Action Items
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open
>
> 2.Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process
> document is out of date
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140>
>
> 3.Issue-137: Rationalise the heartbeats in chapter 6 and 7
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/137>
>
> 4.Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141>
> This is a relatively narrow issue. For reasons of process and practice,
> W3C working groups do not necessarily issue errata in an expeditious
> fashion. We should fix the W3C Process so that it encourages groups to
> consistently and expeditiously issue errata. There are other related
> topics, such as where the errata should reside, that are not part of
> this issue, but separate issues. See also, the discussion at last week’s
> Telcon:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0138.html
>
> and Proposal and associated discussion thread beginning at:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0139.html
>
> 5.Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/144>
>
> This is the “issue” in the Process CG Tracker, but the discussion has
> been wider than this and includes a CfC for mailing list (but, in
> principle, a public notification system  that could be any or all of
> mailing list, DB, Webpage, calendar notification) that can be used to
> indicate a desire for “wide review” of a given document. All of the
> concerns are in scope for this discussion.
>
> See thread announcing the results of the CfC:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0157.html
>
> And if time is available:
>
> 6.Issue-138: Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing
> formally ok? <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/138>
>
> 7.Issue-97: Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really
> accurate and representative?
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/97>
>
> 8.Any other business
>
> For reference, The current editors draft of the Process Document [1].
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html
>
> Steve Zilles
>


-- 
Jay Kishigami 岸上順一 090 2652 6553
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 14:15:10 UTC

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