- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:47:01 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
On 6/17/2013 9:39 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 6/17/13 9:09 AM, ext Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> I'd be interested in your sense of the highest priority issues. > > The main pain point for me is the dependency "policy" blocks progress > as I already mentioned in > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013May/0020.html>. Fair enough. We've discussed in the Team whether we need to change PubRules; and how to change it - but to your point that has not happened yet. Ralph tells me that he is putting this on the Agenda for W3M this week. > > I also provided information re the Process Document in > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013May/0015.html>. > To expand on section 7 a bit ... > > * One change I think would be useful is to be able to go from CR to CR > if no new features are added > > * It seems like PR could be eliminated if the Call for Implementations > included a clear statement to AC reps that it was their last chance to > submit comments. (For example, something like "this spec will advance > directly to Recommendation after the group has satisfied the Director > the spec has interoperable implementations".) > > Anyhow, it appears to me that combining LC and CR eliminates important > checkpoints and creates too many other issues (to address a problem > space that isn't entirely clear to me and apparently some others as > well > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Jun/0021.html>). > > -AB > >
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 14:47:09 UTC