- From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:25:56 +0900
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Larry, Larry Masinter [2013-06-10T14:24]: > Karl, thanks for doing this. no issue. I had a bit of time today. > But I would like to see if there's more clarity about what the problems are, somewhat independent of the proposed solution me too. I first want to know: What is "Charles’ draft of a revised Chapter 7 of the Process Document."? Tied to this issue. Hard to discuss the issue without the draft to point to it. For references and issue tracker, I copied the issues from: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Jun/0016.html > (if you > https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/10 just asks > " Is there a need for a "Call" whether called "Last Call" or not that precedes CR and indicates that the WG believes it is done (no open issues) and a last review should be undertaken? This may be different than Last Call in the current process." > but I'm not sure what problem this would solve? What's wrong with "last call" now? Are there things linked to Last Call that you don't want to invoke, that you need another call? We currently have 1. Editor's draft 2. 1st WD 3. 1 to n WDs 4. Last Call WD 5. CR 6. PR 7. Rec (8. Rescinded Rec) I guess if I understand the proposal (from the issues list), Last Call CR is a 5.5 in between CR and PR. Charles, is it right? -- Karl Dubost http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 08:26:06 UTC