W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

Re: w3process-ISSUE-71 (PubRules-WHATWG): Define PubRules for WHATWG references

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 07:19:26 -0500
Message-ID: <52A3124E.7060309@nokia.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 12/6/13 2:05 PM, ext Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:43:53 +0100, Arthur Barstow 
> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> On 12/6/13 8:41 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>> Responsibility for pubrules lies with the comm team, not this group.
>> Well that's certainly a bug.
>> AB Priority+ take on Pub Rules and make sure related discussions are 
>> done in a Public forum.
> I'm happy to push for the comm team to pay attention to discussions in 
> a public forum (if they aren't), and this forum seems a reasonable 
> choice to me.

Glad to see you support this list/group as a place to discuss PubRules 
issues (after all Publication Rules are cited multiple times in the 
latest Chapter 7 so it would be a bit too myopic to not consider them in 
scope for this group).

> Rather than the AB getting involved in the specifics of how a couple 
> of groups acknowledge contribution to their work it seems to me that a 
> discussion with the attention of the comms team, who control the rules 
> for publications, is a more effective use of everyone's time.

I think the wording of issue-71 and issue-73 captures my main point. As 
long as PubRules are discussed in Public, then I agree there is no need 
to consider these issues as somehow AB  specific issues.

Received on Saturday, 7 December 2013 12:24:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:16 UTC