W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2016

RE: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives (was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:54:53 +0000
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A9D9991C2@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
>Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2016 12:14
>To: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
>(was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
>
>On 20/06/2016 17:35, David Singer wrote:
>
>> 3) As Daniel says, the emails to the AC are going to have to say
>> clearly “I support this appeal.”  We need the text to say that 5% of
>> the AC clearly indicate their formal support for the appeal, in their
>> email to the AC.
>
>I think this is more error-prone and considerably more painful to monitor
>than a WBS form. I would support a switch to a form.

We don't need to put in the Process document exactly how the Team gets the information from the AC.  They can use a mail list, or an online form, or however they tell the AC how to indicate they support the request to have an AC vote on the appeal.  We don't need to have that level of detail in the Process document.

>
></Daniel>
>
>

Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 19:55:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 June 2016 19:55:30 UTC