- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:08:14 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
- CC: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>, "soohong.park@samsung.com" <soohong.park@samsung.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jay Kishigami <jay@kishigami.net>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Based on responses, we have an AB consensus to move forward with Chaals' proposals. Jeff On 6/27/2014 2:20 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > Art is satisfied that Chaals' proposals to address David Singer's > comments addresses his comment #1 in his formal objection. > > In Chaals' proposals to the w3process CG, he identifies which of > David's comments should be addressed immediately as they are editorial > and which should be issues for the future. Noting that there has been > no pushback on the CG list to Chaals' proposals, can we have an AB > consensus to move forward with those changes and thereby be in a > position to ask for Director approval of the new process document? > > (Separately, Ralph has worked with Art to resolve the other comments > of his formal objection.) > > Jeff > > On 6/25/2014 11:52 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> On 6/18/14 6:25 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: >>> For some of David's comments below I have raised issues. For those I >>> believe are truly editorial, I have said what I propose to do - this >>> is open to discussion, but I have not raised an issue. >> >> FWIW, Chaals' proposals and new Issues sufficiently address my >> comment #1. >> >> -Thanks, AB >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 19:08:29 UTC