- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 15:08:18 -0800
- To: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Folks, we have a significant Issues database, and I think it doesn’t reflect where we are. See <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues> Note that for some reason we have issues on other than the process document in there; I am going to focus on that Product only. I’d like to close the following issues. Please tell me if I should not before 17 March 2017. We can then focus on sorting the remaining issues into OPEN (i.e. we’ve taken them up) RAISED (not yet considered) or POSTPONED. I claim that the following Issues, which are in PENDING REVIEW, were addressed in existing, adopted revisions of the Process Document and can be closed: https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/34 Remove the Good Standing rules from the process document? https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/115 Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 months https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/121 Intellectual property information.in charters https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/129 Should the Process define Coordination Groups? https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/138 Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing formally ok? https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140 The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/144 Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/145 Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148 Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152 Process2014 Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154 SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews? https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/159 Remove the current circularity in definition of "editorial change” This issue was marked Postponed but I believe addressed: https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/132 Change the voting system for elections? These issues were RAISED, but I think can be closed: We did a major pass on appeals in 2016: https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/7 Make appealing decisions more believably possible and available https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/134 Appeal against decisions *not* to create a group? https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/135 Direct appeal of WG decisions for AC? https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164 Clean up the description of Appeals throughout the Process Document https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165 Where and how should an appealable decision be identified https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/166 How should appeals for decisions not mentioned in the Process Document be documented https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167 Allow appeal of the Director's rejection of a Proposal up for AC Review if there were positive reviews https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/143 — editorial and rather vague The grammar in the abstract is somewhat unclear https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/158 — a major topic of the process 2016 revision Does rechartering extinguish a WG or continue it? https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/174 — we dealt with Rescinding in 2016 Rescinding a Recommendation in conflict with later versions and patent obligations Finally, these issues were OPEN but I think can be closed: https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/55 — note a process Issue, but practice (Process merely requires the meeting) AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/93 — not clear what the question being asked is What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG? https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/101 — diagrams are indeed substantially improved Improve the diagrams in the Process document https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/131 — pending since 2014 and mostly addressed? Clarify the requirements on meetings and workshops https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/142 — I think the answer is yes. The question is rather vague. Are the role and structure of the AB adequately defined? Dave Singer singer@mac.com
Received on Saturday, 4 March 2017 04:10:13 UTC