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

Thursday, 31 October 2013

Re: w3process-ISSUE-50 (Directors-Calls): If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead [Processes that Suck e.g. too much time, resources, make work, etc.] Arthur Barstow
Re: LCCR is a silly name Wayne Carr
[TR] Substantive Change fantasai
[TR] Editorial wrt Maturity Levels fantasai
Re: w3process-ISSUE-50 (Directors-Calls): If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead [Processes that Suck e.g. too much time, resources, make work, etc.] Sylvain Galineau
Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements fantasai
w3process-ISSUE-50 (Directors-Calls): If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead [Processes that Suck e.g. too much time, resources, make work, etc.] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
RE: [TR] Status Section Requirements Stephen Zilles
RE: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR? Stephen Zilles
Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements Arthur Barstow
Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements fantasai
Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements fantasai
LC-TRprocess-20131024#last-call "complex documents" is too subjective Arthur Barstow
LC-TRprocess-20131024#last-call point #2 needs clarification Arthur Barstow
Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR? Arthur Barstow
Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR? Stephen Zilles
Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements Marcos Caceres
Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR? Arthur Barstow
Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements Arthur Barstow
Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements Tim Berners-Lee

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Re: LCCR is a silly name Charles McCathie Nevile

Thursday, 31 October 2013

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Stephen Zilles
Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] fantasai
Re: LCCR is a silly name Marcos Caceres
Re: LCCR is a silly name Jeff Jaffe
Re: LCCR is a silly name Sylvain Galineau
LCCR is a silly name fantasai
[minutes] 2013-10-28 Chapter 7 revisions Task Force teleconference Coralie Mercier

Monday, 28 October 2013

No meeting of the Process Document Task Force is planned for Nov 4 or Nov 11 Stephen Zilles

Sunday, 27 October 2013

Re: Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 28 October Charles McCathie Nevile
Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 28 October Stephen Zilles

Saturday, 26 October 2013

Thursday, 24 October 2013

Re: Revisions to Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document Jeff Jaffe
Re: Revisions to Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document Jeff Jaffe
Re: Revisions to Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document David Singer
Re: Revisions to Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document Arthur Barstow
Revisions to Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document Jeff Jaffe
New draft, minutes of the Chapter 7 Task Force Charles McCathie Nevile

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

Pushed proposed Ch 7 "LC draft" Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Charles McCathie Nevile

Monday, 21 October 2013

Re: Draft Last Call letter for the revision of Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document Jeff Jaffe
Draft Last Call letter for the revision of Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document Stephen Zilles
Re: Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal David Singer
RE: Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal Stephen Zilles
Re: Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 21 October Arthur Barstow
ISSUE-49: Links in chapter 7 ed don't work e.g. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ab/raw-file/default/tr.html#moztocid983157 Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker

Saturday, 19 October 2013

Re: Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal David Singer
Re: Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal David Singer
Re: Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal Ian Jacobs
Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal Charles McCathie Nevile

Friday, 18 October 2013

Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal Ian Jacobs
Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal David Singer
Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] David Singer
Re: Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force Chris Wilson
Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal Jeff Jaffe
Comments re 7.6.2 and LCCR [Was: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal] Ian Jacobs
Re: Changes to classes of changes? Charles McCathie Nevile
Changes to classes of changes? Ian Jacobs
New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 21 October Charles McCathie Nevile
in situ (or not) changes Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Ian Jacobs
Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Charles McCathie Nevile
Status and "Proposed Recommendation" Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Charles McCathie Nevile
w3process-ISSUE-48 (status of provisionally approved Rec): Status of this document requirements for Provisionally vs formally approved W3C Recommendations [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Ian Jacobs
Re: w3process-ISSUE-47 (in situ TR changes): What kind of changes can be "silently" made to a document in /TR [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Ian Jacobs

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Charles McCathie Nevile
w3process-ISSUE-47 (in situ TR changes): What kind of changes can be "silently" made to a document in /TR [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
Re: Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force David Singer
Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 21 October Stephen Zilles

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Ivan Herman
Re: small comment on the AB draft process document Charles McCathie Nevile

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Monday, 14 October 2013

RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Stephen Zilles
RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal] Ralph Swick

Friday, 11 October 2013

Re: Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force Stephen Zilles
Re: Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force Charles McCathie Nevile

Thursday, 10 October 2013

Re: Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force Chris Wilson
Re: w3process-ISSUE-44 (MinorUpdateNoNewReview): Process should be clear that minor edits at same level do not trigger new review period Chris Wilson
small comment on the AB draft process document Ivan Herman
Re: Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force Arthur Barstow
Re: Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section Chris Lilley

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

Re: Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section Charles McCathie Nevile
New Editor's draft, Chapter 7 Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation [ISSUE-45] Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation [ISSUE-45] Chris Lilley
Re: Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section Chris Lilley
Re: Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section Charles McCathie Nevile
w3process-ISSUE-46 (explain heartbeat-only): Publish and explain if 6 months pass with no change [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation Charles McCathie Nevile
w3process-ISSUE-45 (fix all the erratas): Is the requirement that all errata should be addressed in an edited Recommendation too strong? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
Going public: AB process Chapter 7 task force Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: w3process-ISSUE-44 (MinorUpdateNoNewReview): Process should be clear that minor edits at same level do not trigger new review period Charles McCathie Nevile
Errata and Edited Recommendation Chris Lilley
Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section Chris Lilley
w3process-ISSUE-44 (MinorUpdateNoNewReview): Process should be clear that minor edits at same level do not trigger new review period Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker

Monday, 7 October 2013

Re: New Editor's draft of Chapter 7 Charles McCathie Nevile
RE: New Editor's draft of Chapter 7 Stephen Zilles

Thursday, 3 October 2013

Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7 Ian Jacobs
New Editor's draft of Chapter 7 Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7 Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7 Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: What about CGs? re Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions Arthur Barstow
Re: What about CGs? re Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions Ian Jacobs
Re: What about CGs? re Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions Arthur Barstow
Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7 Ian Jacobs
w3process-ISSUE-43 (edited rec: transition?): Does publishing an edited Recommendation require meeting all "state transition" requirements? Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
Re: What about CGs? re Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions Ian Jacobs
Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7 Charles McCathie Nevile
Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7 Charles McCathie Nevile
w3process-ISSUE-42 (Patent Policy refs): Accurate and clear references to the Patent Policy Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
w3process-ISSUE-41 (Reviewing corrections): Remove the "Review of corrections" process? Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker
Re: What about CGs? re Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions Arthur Barstow
Re: What about CGs? re Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions Ian Jacobs
What about CGs? re Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions Arthur Barstow

Last message date: Thursday, 31 October 2013 23:20:17 UTC