Re: Comments on

On 2014-06-16 08:43, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 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.

As I remember it, those comments weren't "Last Call" comments. There 
were no comments in the second last call at all (in April), presumably 
having been dealt with satisfactorily in the first last call.  Am I 
misremembering this?

I assume you are referring to comments that came in as part of the AC 
review.  Those comments appear to me largely editorial and so can be 
fixed as part of the usual process of considering the AC review and not 
hold up approval.  Other comments may be new topics for the next round 
of revisions. I don't remember any significant point of disagreement.

> 2. As I understand it, the `transition plan` is the 5 points in 
> <>. 
> 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.

Last Call has been over for quite a while.

> (AFAIK, the comments from @SomeCommenter are not Public and I do not 
> have permission to copy them to Public space.)
> -HTH, AB
> [RfC] 
> <>
> [Proposal] <>
> [ProcDoc] 
> <>

Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 17:30:44 UTC