- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:21:20 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, public-new-work@w3.org
Le 26/04/2017 à 15:59, Ivan Herman a écrit : > Thank you Daniel. What I will do is to produce a shadow charter that includes all the changes we have so far. We will, in the coming days, send a mail to the AC membership referring to this shadow charter that they should take into account in their possible votes (or review their existing votes) Er... Sorry, but I don't completely understand. There are, according to process, 4 possible outcomes for a review: 1. approved, modulo minor changes 2. approved, modulo substantive changes and Director's rationale 3. returned for more work 4. rejected None of these allow an extra document transmitted to the AC in the middle of the formal Review. W3M already did that several times in the past and I *loudly* complained about it. In the case of the CSS WG, it led to a MAJOR catastrophe and several CSS WG members officially complained. I strongly disagree with that approach, that is, again, not allowed by the Process. Please let the Review finish, aggregate reviews, make a proposal to the Director and let him make his choice. </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:21:59 UTC