Re: Process Task Force Telcon on 18 November, 2014

On 11/17/2014 1:09 PM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> regrets. Comments on the issues inline…
> 17.11.2014, 21:01, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>:
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> 1.Review Open Action Items
>> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open
>>
>> 2.Issue-129 Remove Coordination Groups 
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/129>
>>
> I'm unconvinced that we need all this process for one group of people 
> to hold one meeting per week
> . I find Mike's argument convincing.

There was discussion on the thread of having a conversation with Judy to 
close this issue.  Would you be willing to participate in/lead that 
conversation?

>> 3.Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review 
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/144>
>>
>> See thread that begins at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0130.html
>>
> Of the proposals in that mail I support numbers 1, 2, and the first 
> proposed variant of 4, but oppose proposal 3.
> With regards to naming the review list, I'm ambivalent but if we do it 
> I prefer Steve's formulation.
>>
>> 5.Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the 
>> process document is out of date 
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140>
>>
>> See thread beginning with:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0116.html
>> which has the discussion of the text Chaals proposed for Section 2.2
>>
> I support adopting my proposed text.
>>
>> And if time is available:
>>
>> 6.Issue-97: Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really 
>> accurate and representative? 
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/97>
>>
> I think we should close this as Wontfix - the name is a bit odd, but 
> changing it isn't going to achieve anything important.
> cheers
> Chaals
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com