Re: How can external organization reference draft W3C specifications

Calling it out separately does not imply having a separate solution, it only implies making sure whatever solution is found, if any, covers it -- otherwise, to be consistent with your stance, you should merge the other three items into one.

Eduardo

---
Sent from my Samsung tablet - blame Android for all typosStephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:The reason that I suggested that this topic be discussed with the other 3 similar topics is that an answer is needed for all of the and separate solutions for each will not help much

Steve Z

Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T


-----Original message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
To: Eduardo Gutentag <egutentag@gmail.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Cc: Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, 'Giuseppe Pascale' <giuseppep@opera.com>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 19:35:07 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: How can external organization reference draft W3C specifications

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:38:26 +0100, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> On 3/20/2012 2:35 PM, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>
>> sorry I wasn't clearer; I meant that the subject line wording ("How
>> can external organizations reference draft W3C Specifications?")
>> should be incorporated as an item in the List of Concerns now instead
>> of spending too much time trying to find a more verbose but not
>> necessarily more accurate description of the concern.
>
> That was the original proposal rejected by the chair who wants to
> shoe-horn it into one of the existing three items he noted.

You cross-posted this to two different groups (the CG and the AB). As  
chair of the CG I'd like to clarify. The chair of the AB said that the  
issue was covered under three of the items posted as issues by the AB  
(archived publicly at  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Mar/att-0007/AB_List_of_Concerns-20120306.htm  
for those who missed it).

This Community Group (where the thread began) can happily raise a specific  
issue, discuss and provide feedback to the AB and/or AC explaining which  
of the questions they are discussing the issue touches. Any reason not to  
do that, with Jeff's wording?

cheers

Chaals

>> On 03/20/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2012 1:41 PM, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/20/2012 09:31 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:18:24 +0100, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 12:05 AM, Steve Zilles wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>    There are already 3 items on the List of Concerns [1], all
>>>>>>> under Contextual/Social Framework,  that, separately, cover
>>>>>>> various aspects of this request. These are:
>>>>>>>       * What are the various audiences for documents?
>>>>>>>       * Desire for stable reference.
>>>>>>>       * Official drafts are disconnected from some audience needs.
>>>>>>> It does not seem necessary to add anything to the list, but the
>>>>>>> request should be considered with these items.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the three bullets referenced could (in principle)
>>>>>> include the issue of how organizations that we liaison with
>>>>>> normatively reference our standards.  But I don't see verbiage in
>>>>>> the detailed description that would make me confident that the
>>>>>> Open IPTV forum concern got addressed.  Would anyone object to
>>>>>> making the detailed verbiage more specific to this requirement?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that would be great
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>> and look forward to your wording ;)
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that verbiage included in the subject line of this thread?
>>>
>>> Yes, but the subject line of the thread is not part of the List of
>>> Concerns.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com