- From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:12:44 +0000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Comments inline below: -----Original Message----- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:33 AM To: public-w3process@w3.org Subject: Issue-55 [Was: Re: [minutes] 2013-11-25 Chapter 7 Revisions meeting] On 11/27/13 6:18 AM, ext Coralie Mercier wrote: > issue-55? > > <trackbot> issue-55 -- AC Meetings should not be scheduled to > overlap All WG meetings -- raised > > SteveZ: I'd put this in the "not a process issue" category, > certainly not an issue for Chapter 7 > > Ralph: I agree > ... I also doubt it's a process issue. > ... But the community can followup on it. > > SteveZ: I'll notify Art. > > Jeff: Art raised this as a W3C Process issue > > Ralph: I recommend Steve writes to Chaals that this isn't a > process issue Issue-55 cites Chapter 2 of Process-20051014 which _does_ define the requirements for AC meetings so I don't understand the view that "this isn't a process issue". You'll notice the "Product" for this issue is the generic "Process Document" and _not_ the Chapter 7 tracker Product. SZ: You comment above is valid, the section to which you refer does define rules for AC Meetings. The reason for my comment that it was not a Process Issue was that we try to put into the Process only that which needs to happen, primarily to insure fairness, the right to participate and enable public review. This did not seem to be in that category of things. Things such as scheduling within meetings is left to the meeting organizers. We generally avoid trying to micro-manage such decisions. I would also note that one could achieve your result by having less time for WG meetings so they did not overlap the AC Meeting times. That may be counter productive. Steve -AB
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 20:13:15 UTC