W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publishingbg@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Re 2: Proposal for charter changes, in view of the formal objections by Vivliostyle & Disruptive Innovation

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
Message-ID: <9d47368e-37ef-0659-bc89-7b5e196275c3@disruptive-innovations.com>
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 14:21:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:21:58 UTC