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

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.

3. Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review
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 Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date
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?

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