public-w3process@w3.org from July 2013 by date

Monday, 29 July 2013

RE: What is "wide review" Larry Masinter

Tuesday, 23 July 2013

w3process-ISSUE-38 (documenting implementation): Add a should requirement to document known implementation [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
Re: New chapter 7 editor's draft Wayne Carr
New chapter 7 editor's draft Charles McCathie Nevile

Monday, 22 July 2013

RE: The Chapter 7 requirements for issuing a document Stephen Zilles

Sunday, 21 July 2013

Re: What is "wide review" Jeff Jaffe
Re: The Chapter 7 requirements for issuing a document Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: What is "wide review" Charles McCathie Nevile

Saturday, 20 July 2013

w3process-ISSUE-37 (generic shoulds): Drop the shoulds for general transitions [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
The Chapter 7 requirements for issuing a document Stephen Zilles

Friday, 12 July 2013

Re: What is "wide review" Jeff Jaffe
Re: What is "wide review" Arthur Barstow

Thursday, 11 July 2013

Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" Sandro Hawke
Re: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document Arthur Barstow

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

Re: What is "wide review" Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document Charles McCathie Nevile
RE: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document Suresh Chitturi
Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" Ian Jacobs
Re: What is "wide review" Jeff Jaffe
Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" Sandro Hawke
Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" Ian Jacobs
Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" Sandro Hawke
Re: Some comments "Rec Track Process" Ian Jacobs
Some comments "Rec Track Process" Sandro Hawke

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Monday, 8 July 2013

Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] Scott K Peterson
RE: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] Stephen Zilles
Re: Scope Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Arthur Barstow
Scope Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] Arthur Barstow
Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] Jeff Jaffe
Re: w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] Arthur Barstow
w3process-ISSUE-36: Should the waiting period required by the Patent Policy be changed? [Process Document] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
Re: w3process-ISSUE-35: Clarify "base" document for Technical Reports change requests [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: w3process-ISSUE-34 (good standing): Remove the Good Standing rules from the process document? [Process Document] Arthur Barstow
w3process-ISSUE-35: Clarify "base" document for Technical Reports change requests [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
w3process-ISSUE-34 (good standing): Remove the Good Standing rules from the process document? [Process Document] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
What is "wide review" Charles McCathie Nevile

Last message date: Monday, 29 July 2013 02:53:59 UTC