- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 08:33:22 +0200
- To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, youenn fablet <yfablet@apple.com>
- Cc: "<public-webrtc@w3.org>" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Le 20/10/2018 à 03:31, Bernard Aboba a écrit : > Dom - Can you respond relating to the PR requirements? In addition to > interop demonstration do we get to decide what issues block PR as we did > with CR? We might have a “Zero Bug Bounce” but staying at zero is > challenging... The process document [1] requires the WG to A. show adequate implementation experience except where an exception is approved by the Director, B. show that the document has received wide review, C. show that all issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation review period other than by Advisory Committee representatives acting in their formal AC representative role have been formally addressed, D. identify any substantive issues raised since the close of the Candidate Recommendation review period by parties other than Advisory Committee representatives acting in their formal AC representative role, C. means that we need to address all the issues we deem in scope for 1.0; addressing some of the issues may include deciding that some behaviors remain undefined, that some features get pushed to a later version, etc. Dom 1. https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#rec-pr
Received on Monday, 22 October 2018 06:33:26 UTC