RE: Comments on https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html

I'm fine with #2 and #3 below but in #1
>  Otherwise, the AB, as the Consortium's
> "process steward" sets a `bad example` for other groups that *are*
> required to address all Last Call comments.

What unprocessed Last Call comments are you referring to? David Singer's comments in the  breakout session and AC ballot are essentially "PR" comments not "LC" comments.
________________________________________
From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:43 AM
To: public-w3process
Subject: Comments on https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html

Jeff and Ralph asked me to clarify my expectations regarding point #1 of
the comments I submitted for [Proposal]:

[[
1. The comments from @SomeCommenter should be addressed (f.e.x.
discussed and implemented where there is consensus) before the Director
approves this proposed ProcDoc. Otherwise, the AB, as the Consortium's
"process steward" sets a `bad example` for other groups that *are*
required to address all Last Call comments.

2. As I understand it, the `transition plan` is the 5 points in
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Mar/0019.html>. I
think this plan is somewhat incomprehensible and should be clarified
before the proposal is implemented. For instance, I can't tell which
specific point(s?) apply to WebApps.

3.Work on a related Best Practices / FAQ should be started *before* the
proposal is implemented.
]]

Since the [RfC] identifies [Proposal] as a "Last Call" document, I
expect the process defined by [ProcDoc] applies.

(AFAIK, the comments from @SomeCommenter are not Public and I do not
have permission to copy them to Public space.)

-HTH, AB

[RfC]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Mar/0019.html>
[Proposal] <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html>
[ProcDoc]
<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address>

Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 16:29:19 UTC