RE: Comments on

>, can we have an AB consensus to move
>forward with those changes

I agree with the proposed consensus

From: Jeff Jaffe<>
Sent: 6/27/2014 11:21 AM
To: Arthur Barstow<>; Ralph Swick<>;<>
Cc: GALINDO Virginie<>;<>; David Singer<>; Jay Kishigami<>;<>
Subject: Re: Comments on

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.)


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 19:09:08 UTC