- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 08:55:07 -0600
- To: "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: "Revising W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Sylvain Galineau" <galineau@adobe.com>
On Nov 9, 2013, at 10:50 AM, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 09:57:16 +0100, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/9/13 4:41 PM, "Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker" >> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> w3process-ISSUE-51 (SoTD): What to do with the Status section? [Document >>> life cycle (ch 7)] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51 >>> >>> Raised by: Elika Etemad >>> On product: Document life cycle (ch 7) >>> >>> In an email, Fantasai asked if we really should have a status section at >>> all, since she says it is mostly boilerplate that nobody reads. >> >> I think Elika was asking whether we could move the boilerplate out of the >> status section as the former effectively defeats the purpose of the latter. > > Maybe. There's a range of ways to look at what we do, I just wanted something in the tracker because my memory isn't always powered up. And because it came up in a different thread at the same time. I thought the question whether the status section is required by "Process" or required by "Pubrules." I have no objection to it being the purview of pubrules. Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2013 14:55:22 UTC