In case more detail is useful: after the call on that Wednesday (June 19th), I sent out an email describing the change: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0220.html > As the editors have indicated their support and we have seen support from the group in working off of the shorter June draft, we will move the June draft to be the new editors' draft. Because this change is significant, we will ensure a link remains to the last published Working Draft (the May WD matches the April 29 editors' draft). And I made the commit that Saturday: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2013Jun/0006.html —Nick On Jul 25, 2013, at 2:19 AM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote: > Thank you, Heather. > > On Jul 24, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Heather West <heatherwest@google.com> wrote: > >> John - both Justin and Peter are out, so we should let them chime in too, but Peter explained the thinking of chairs, editors, and W3C folks here: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0145.html >> >> The goal was a streamlined draft to move forward from, given the messy state of the previous draft. Justin and I agreed, as editors, that was a promising approach. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:56 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote: >> Hi Heather and Justin, >> >> I wonder if you could please tell the WG what prompted you to decide to accept the "June Draft" aka the "Swire/W3C staff draft" as the Editors' Working draft. >> >> Any explanation of your reasoning would be most helpful. >> >> Best regards, >> >> John M. Simpson
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 10:55:47 UTC