Suggestion and question (was: Re: [minutes] Internationalization telecon 2024-11-21)

Just to prove that someone, occasionally, reads the minutes... :-)

--On Friday, November 22, 2024 09:55 +0800 Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org>
wrote:

> https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-i18n-minutes.html
> 
>...
>     <addison> #141
> 
>     <gb> [16]Action 141 set up IETF reviews requested by mnot@ et
>     al (on xfq) due 2024-11-14
> 
>       [16] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/141
> 
>     <addison> #139
> 
>     <gb> [17]Action 139 review old timezone note to ensure all
>     content is present and accounted for (on aphillips) due
>     2024-11-07
> 
>       [17] https://github.com/w3c/i18n-actions/issues/139
> 
>     <addison> xfq: did contact mnot about where to put comments
> 
>     <addison> ... send comments to authors and art area mailing
>     list and iesg
> 
>     addison: traditionally, the IETF does everything on mailing
>     lists
>     … what that probably means is that we should collect
> everything
>     and write one email to the IESG list
> 
>     <addison> close #139

For multiple reasons, please copy the ART list on any notes like this
to the IESG.  First, this should be a good habit to be sure the ADs
get any needed input from the community.  More broadly, this should
just be a habit: while I trust the current ADs, there is no way to
predict whether their successors will know what they don't know and
be sensitive to it (given history, especially on i18n issues).  Even
that may not be sufficient, but it is the best we can do and doing
less would not be a good idea if you/we want broad perspective and
input, not just some sort of proforma signoff.

>     <gb> Closed [18]issue #139
>...
 

>   AOB?
> 
>     addison: do y'all want to have a meeting next week?
>     … next week is US holiday, Thanksgiving
>     … the Christmas holiday falls the day before this call in that
>     week
>     … in the last full week of this year
>     … anybody want to have a meeting that week or shall I cancel
>     that one?
>     … and also the meeting of Jan 2
>     … any objection to removing those?
> 
>     r12a: not for me
> 
>     addison: all right, so I'll cancel those two calls
>     … if memory serves, the CSS call is on the 24th

Not sure what the conclusion was above.  Sounds like canceling
meetings on Nov 28th, Dec 26, and Jan 2, but the above says "two
calls".  Was that supposed to be "three" or, if "two" is correct,
which ones are being cancelled?

>...

best,
   john

Received on Sunday, 24 November 2024 17:10:55 UTC