- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:05:30 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 08:44 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: [...] > I've sent feedback to the PFWG; I was told that my feedback wasn't formal > enough and that I would not get a reply: which is totally bogus; I see Sam followed up as chair; that's good. Nowhere does the W3C process document say that input has to come from groups. "The group SHOULD reply to a reviewer's initial comments in a timely manner." -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address "The Process Document promotes the goals of quality and fairness in technical decisions by encouraging consensus, requiring reviews (by both Members and public) as part of the technical report development process," -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/intro.html#Intro > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0260.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0262.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0270.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 16:05:40 UTC