- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:20:57 -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>
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 Friday, 27 June 2014 18:21:11 UTC