- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:50:40 -0700
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 2014-06-16 11:09, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 6/16/14 1:30 PM, Wayne Carr wrote: >> I assume you are referring to comments that came in as part of the AC >> review. > > Yes. > >> 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. > > Well perhaps so but my understanding is there was agreement this list > would be used for tasks such as comment processing. As such, my > expectation is the group will review the comments. I'd think with those comments that anything new that would actually change the process (e.g. wanting some other old text in the process changed that we hadn't been looking at) would likely turn into an issue for this group to look at for the next revision. But, for something that's clearly an editorial clarification (a sentence could be worded better), I don't think we should keep on iterating through this long process. i.e. not go back to this list for minor wording review, then do another last call review, then do another long AC review. That would be months down the road until we're back where we are now. I like the chapter 7 revisions, very much like that it was done largely in this CG - but this is at a stage where the AC wouldn't be reviewing the comments for editorial changes either -- it would be part of the Director's decision on consensus based on the AC review. The AC could then appeal the decision if it objected. I think we should finish this up - and not have it drag on - and start a new round of revisions. > > -AB > > > > >
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 19:51:38 UTC