- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:17:50 +0300
- To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "Ralph Swick" <swick@w3.org>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>, "GALINDO Virginie" <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
- Cc: "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>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:17:43 +0300, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote: > +1 (informative, as my AB mandate starts on 1st of July) > Lets move forward with the changes. I'm not going to get it done before Wednesday. At which point you'll be in the AB for real. cheers > Virginie > > From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) > [mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com] > Sent: vendredi 27 juin 2014 21:09 > To: Jeff Jaffe; Arthur Barstow; Ralph Swick; ab@w3.org > Cc: GALINDO Virginie; soohong.park@samsung.com; David Singer; Jay > Kishigami; public-w3process@w3.org > Subject: RE: Comments on > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html > >> , can we have an AB consensus to move >> forward with those changes > > I agree with the proposed consensus > > Mike > ________________________________ > From: Jeff Jaffe<mailto:jeff@w3.org> > Sent: 6/27/2014 11:21 AM > To: Arthur Barstow<mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>; Ralph > Swick<mailto:swick@w3.org>; ab@w3.org<mailto:ab@w3.org> > Cc: GALINDO Virginie<mailto:Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>; > soohong.park@samsung.com<mailto:soohong.park@samsung.com>; David > Singer<mailto:singer@apple.com>; Jay > Kishigami<mailto:jay@kishigami.net>; > public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Comments on > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/5508dec95a6a/tr.html > 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 >> >> >> > > ________________________________ > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees > and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or > disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited. > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable > for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the > intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the > sender. > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission > free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a > transmitted virus. -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 12:18:27 UTC