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

Friday, 29 November 2013

• Re: Purpose (and Naming) of LCCR Jeff Jaffe

Thursday, 28 November 2013

• Re: Purpose (and Naming) of LCCR fantasai
• Re: Purpose (and Naming) of LCCR Jeff Jaffe
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-67 (Ch7-Education-Is-the-Key): Rather than change LC and CR, it seems like it would be more effective to attack the cycle problem via Education and Outreach [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Charles McCathie Nevile
• Re: General comments for Proposed Chapter 7 Charles McCathie Nevile
• LCCR period too short fantasai
• Purpose (and Naming) of LCCR fantasai
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-70 (Ch7-Eliminate-"Normative"): Usage of "normative" needs clarification [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Charles McCathie Nevile
• RE: w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Stephen Zilles

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

• Re: w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Charles McCathie Nevile
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Jeff Jaffe
• RE: w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Stephen Zilles
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Arthur Barstow
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Charles McCathie Nevile
• RE: Issue-55 [Was: Re: [minutes] 2013-11-25 Chapter 7 Revisions meeting] Stephen Zilles
• Issue-55 [Was: Re: [minutes] 2013-11-25 Chapter 7 Revisions meeting] Arthur Barstow
• Re: Request for deadline extension for Ch7 proposal Jeff Jaffe
• w3process-ISSUE-70 (Ch7-Eliminate-"Normative"): Usage of "normative" needs clarification [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-69 (Ch7-Get-Review-from-SDOs): Chapter 7: get Wide Review of Chapter 7 from other SDOs [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• Re: General comments for Proposed Chapter 7 Sylvain Galineau
• Request for deadline extension for Ch7 proposal Arthur Barstow
• w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-67 (Ch7-Education-Is-the-Key): Rather than change LC and CR, it seems like it would be more effective to attack the cycle problem via Education and Outreach [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-66 (Ch7-Please-Dont-Create-New-Problems): Elimination of LC or combining LC and CR creates new problems [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• Re: General comments for Proposed Chapter 7 Jeff Jaffe
• w3process-ISSUE-65 (Ch7-Define-(un)Stable): Chapter 7: define stable and unstable [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• General comments for Proposed Chapter 7 Arthur Barstow
• [minutes] 2013-11-25 Chapter 7 Revisions meeting Coralie Mercier
• [minutes] 2013-11-15 Chapter 7 Revisions (part of Advisory Board f2f Day 2) meeting Coralie Mercier
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-60 (Ch7-Evolution): Chapter 7 should be moved to Github to encourage and facilitate contributions to its evolution [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Marcos Caceres
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-60 (Ch7-Evolution): Chapter 7 should be moved to Github to encourage and facilitate contributions to its evolution [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Charles McCathie Nevile
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-63 (Ch7-Changes-Appendix): Chapter 7: Changes since last publication should be in an Appendix [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Charles McCathie Nevile

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

• What is the plan to get Wide Review of Chapter 7 from other SDOs? Arthur Barstow
• w3process-ISSUE-64 (Ch7-Errata): Chapter 7: add a link to an errata page [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-61 (Ch7-Acknowledgements): Move the Acknowledgements to a separate Appendix at the end of the doc [Community Group Processes] Arthur Barstow
• w3process-ISSUE-63 (Ch7-Changes-Appendix): Chapter 7: Changes since last publication should be in an Appendix [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-62 (Ch7-Comments-List): Chapter 7: include the mail list for comments and a link to the archive [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-61 (Ch7-Acknowledgements): Move the Acknowledgements to a separate Appendix at the end of the doc [Community Group Processes] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• Re: [tr] Proposed New Outline Arthur Barstow
• w3process-ISSUE-60 (Ch7-Evolution): Chapter 7 should be moved to Github to encourage and facilitate contributions to its evolution [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-59 (Chap7-Organization): The 24-Oct-2013 Draft of Ch7 has some organizational issues and readability suffers [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• [tr] Proposed New Outline fantasai

Monday, 25 November 2013

• Nov 27 is deadline for Ch7 Comments [Was: Re: Revisions to Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document] Arthur Barstow
• Results from 25 November W3C Process Task Force meeting Stephen Zilles
• w3process-ISSUE-58 (Implementation of "this" specification): Clarifying that implementation experience is for specification being progressed [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-57 (Editor's Drafts): Avoid using the term "publishing" for Editor's Drafts [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-56 (Pending LCCR Announcement): How are groups outside the W3C, but with dependencies on a specification notified of a pending LCCR? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 25 November Stephen Zilles

Saturday, 23 November 2013

• RE: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Bell, Jim (Standards)

Friday, 22 November 2013

• w3process-ISSUE-55 (AC-WG-Meeting-Overlap): AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings [Process Document] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker

Monday, 18 November 2013

• No W3C Process Task Force Telcon on Monday 11/18 Stephen Zilles

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

• Re: w3process-ISSUE-51 (SoTD): What to do with the Status section? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] fantasai

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Wayne Carr
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard David Singer
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Doug Schepers
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Doug Schepers
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Ian Jacobs
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard David Singer
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Doug Schepers
• RE: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Stephen Zilles
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Ian Jacobs
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard L. David Baron
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard David Singer
• w3process-ISSUE-54: Change Recommendation to Standard Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• w3process-ISSUE-53 (Rename LCCR): Rename Last Call Candidate Recommendation [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker

Sunday, 10 November 2013

• w3process-ISSUE-52 (Wide Review Ensured): How is satisfying â??widely reviewedâ?? encouraged/ensured? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
• Encouraging/Ensuring Wide Review Stephen Zilles
• RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)

Saturday, 9 November 2013

• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Jeff Jaffe
• RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Stephen Zilles
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-51 (SoTD): What to do with the Status section? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Ian Jacobs
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Jeff Jaffe
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-51 (SoTD): What to do with the Status section? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Charles McCathie Nevile
• Re: w3process-ISSUE-51 (SoTD): What to do with the Status section? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Sylvain Galineau
• w3process-ISSUE-51 (SoTD): What to do with the Status section? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker

Friday, 8 November 2013

• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Wayne Carr
• RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Charles McCathie Nevile
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Sylvain Galineau

Thursday, 7 November 2013

• Re: The Emperor's New Process [Was: Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR?] Charles McCathie Nevile
• RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Marcos Caceres
• Re: The Emperor's New Process [Was: Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR?] Arthur Barstow
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Tobie Langel
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Arthur Barstow
• RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] David Singer

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

• RE: The Emperor's New Process [Was: Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR?] Stephen Zilles
• The Emperor's New Process [Was: Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR?] Arthur Barstow
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Charles McCathie Nevile
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] David Singer
• Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Charles McCathie Nevile
• Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR? Charles McCathie Nevile

Friday, 1 November 2013

• Re: [TR] Substantive Change Charles McCathie Nevile
• Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR? Charles McCathie Nevile

Last message date: Friday, 29 November 2013 02:45:35 UTC