- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 10:14:51 -0500
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/1/14 10:10 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Virginie agreed to lead a "Spec systematization and consistency" effort (see [2]) and it seems to me the scope of that effort could include fleshing out some "wide review BPs and guidelines". If that effort considers such a doc as out of scope, I would be willing to help create such a doc (and would welcome your input, as well as others). > > I went ahead and created a first draft. Comments of course are welcome but direct updating is definitely preferred: > > <https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview> Thanks, Art. I've added a FAQ entry to the transition doc that links to that wiki. "Without a "Last Call" signal, how do groups get review under the new Process?" https://www.w3.org/wiki/ProcessTransition2014#Without_a_.22Last_Call.22_signal.2C_how_do_groups_get_review_under_the_new_Process.3F Ian -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 15:14:58 UTC