- From: Jean-Charles (JC) Verdié <jicheu@yahoo.fr>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:32:58 +0200
- To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: >> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/process201405/results#xspec1> > > So in essence you're taking David's editorial suggestions and list of bugs in the existing process document and saying that they are must-fix for this version? That's a reasonable substantive position for you to take, but I don't agree that we (AB or W3M) would be setting a bad example as process steward by deferring them to the next revision of the process doc. If we don't finalize documents until all comments, even those coming in the AC ballot, are resolved, we are unlikely to ever produce another Recommendation in time for it to be relevant. The only practical way forward is one manageable revision at a time, deferring hard or late comments until the next revision. +1 Regards, JC
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 08:33:32 UTC