Re: ISSUE-10 Raising awareness before CR

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:25:56 +0900, Karl Dubost <> wrote:

> 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.

It is the HTML document you can download at  
(Скачть means download).

There isn't an obvious way to publish it within this group, except by  
making it a draft report. And since I have one-time permission to publish,  
and there is no resolution from the group to publish it, it isn't obvious  
that that would be the best thing to do.

I'll open an issue on whether I should do that I guess...



> For references and issue tracker, I copied the issues from:
>> (if you
>>  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 Rescinded Rec)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?

Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 08:51:59 UTC