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)]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:42 PM
To: Stephen Zilles; Arthur Barstow; public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: 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)]


On 11/27/2013 5:11 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> Comments below
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:36 PM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: 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)]
>
> On 11/27/13 3:13 PM, ext Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:33:51 +1100, Revising W3C Process Community 
>> Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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)]
>> This is a duplicate of ISSUE-39 which is already open.
> I disagree. Please keep Issue-68 separate.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> SZ: Art, could you please be more specific about what your issue is. We have not yet chosen the method for phasing in a new Chapter 7 assuming such gets approved by an AC Review. You list this as a Chapter 7 issue, but it does not affect any part of Chapter 7, only the method by which it would be phased in and that is not part of the Process. It is, however, part of the discussion. Given that, I am not sure what you mean by a Candidate Period?

I believe Art is requesting that for a period of time, WGs have an option to use the current Chapter 7 or the new one.  Since that would mean that we have two extant Chapter 7's at once, arguably that is a Chapter 7 issue.

SZ: If that is all that he is asking, then all the plans that we have considered provided that (except for new Working Groups) and it was expressed as using the old process (which is already published) or the new one. There are not two chapter 7's in an single document. The only question is what is the time period that either process can be used.

>
> Steve Zilles
>
>

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 02:10:55 UTC