- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:05:06 +0200
- To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Erika Doyle Navara <erika.doyle@microsoft.com>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>
On 24/06/2015 00:55 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: > More to the point, I'm happy with what we have now, and wondering what > the roadmap is for settling these down so we can propose more detailed > changes without worrying that they'll get washed away by another > organisational shuffle. > Does it make sense to have a "last call for changes" and a CfC to go > forward with this structure now, or do people need more time…? There would certainly be value in moving ahead; people are asking where and how they can make changes and while the split is in the air there isn't really a good answer to that question. No split has to be forever, documents can merge or split further later in their lifetimes. Some questions to consider, however: Assuming the split is fine, should we start publishing split parts now or is it better to wait for the group's reorganisation? Should the first batch of documents be published as one big set? It has big advantages when it comes to linking; but it's a solid chunk of work. I'm assuming we'd put all documents under Process 2014 and auto-publication? The split documents are currently all listed as being without editors. Would it be acceptable to take the current list of editors as "Former Editors"? Any takers for specific documents? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 09:05:13 UTC