- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:45:17 -0600
- To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-w3process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
On Nov 10, 2014, at 12:41 PM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: > > > 10.11.2014, 19:35, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>: >> On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Nigel made his original post about the lack of let's say "guidelines" nearly six weeks ago. It would be good if we could get to a point where proposals (like this one) that don't get blocked by "OMG, will doing X risk loosing full member Y?" >> >> Did someone actually say that during the course of these discussions? I may have missed that comment. > > I don't think it matters if they did or not. Although we could waste lots of time discussing it. I mostly want a binary answer: This was really uttered or it was not. > >> What I do know is that the request happened just before TPAC, when the staff is very busy. Since TPAC >> I have been working on this tool and getting feedback on this public list. >>> just get implemented (and iterated if/when necessary). As such, I recommend you put this service online toady and let's see what happens. I note too that since Nigel's request, 7 LCWDs have been published and thus not announced. I can't tell from a first level scan of TR/tr-date-drafts/ if any FPWDs or PD2014 pre-CRs have been published since his posting. >>> >>> [BTW, it's a bug that tr-date-drafts does not explicitly identify FPWDs >> >> I can ask the Systems Team to add "First" to the status column. > > Actually, identifying the FP+90day draft would be a pretty useful thing to do, since that is the draft that gets patent commitments if published. I'll request that as well. Ian -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 18:45:24 UTC