- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:56:33 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Le mercredi 13 mai 2009 à 12:31 -0400, Arthur Barstow a écrit : > > I haven't removed/modified the milestones table yet; Robin's latest > > proposal is appealing to me, though. I'll try and see if that would > > fly > > wrt process requirements. > > Sigh. It appears you already removed it (and I thought there was a > high value on consensus here :-)). Surely there is consensus until someone expresses dissent :) You had expressed dissent about not having any milestones defined, not about defining them in a different format. > Regarding: > > [[ > 2009Q4-2010Q1 > A subset of the deliverables that the WG considers to be of > higher priority or maturity progresses along Recommendation track. > ]] > > Text like this would permit a Chair to block a spec that a minority > of the WG wants to progress. I've replaced it with: "Deliverables with assigned editors progress along Recommendation track" - does that work for you? > As such, I object to it since a > requirement of the Charter is that all specs must be given equal > priority i.e. any spec may progress if a Member is willing to provide > the necessary resources. (in theory, the Chairs are responsible for nominating editors IIRC, so a Chair could still block the work by refusing any editors; in practice, I don't think this is a big risk) Dom
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 06:56:58 UTC