Re: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 14 October

I am sorry, I did not see this agenda before heading home for the evening, and assumed that there was not a call this week.  My mistake.

On Oct 13, 2014, at 16:43 , Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org> wrote:

> The call information for the Tuesday, 14 October, Process Document TF is
> Tuesdays 14:00-15:00 UTC (10:00am-11:00am Boston local)
> Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference code 7762 ("PROC")
> IRC Channel: #w3process
> 
> For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times is:
> Pacific US
> Eastern US
> Central Europe
> Japan
> Australia
> UTC
> 7:00
> 10:00
> 16:00
> 23:00
> 24:00/0:00
> 14:00
>  
> The purpose of these meetings has been to agree on the resolution of open issues, close them where possible or assign actions to move toward closure.
>  
> Agenda:
> 1.      Review Open Action Items
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open
> 2.      Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C
> This is a relatively narrow issue. For reasons of process and practice, W3C working groups do not necessarily issue errata in an expeditious fashion. We should fix the W3C Process so that it encourages groups to consistently and expeditiously issue errata. There are other related topics, such as where the errata should reside, that are not part of this issue, but separate issues.
> 3.      Issue-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date
> 4.      Issue-137: Rationalise the heartbeats in chapter 6 and 7
> 5.      Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review
> This is the “issue” in the Process CG Tracker, but the discussion has been wider than this and includes a CfC for mailing list (but, in principle, a public notification system  that could be any or all of mailing list, DB, Webpage, calendar notification) that can be used to indicate a desire for “wide review” of a given document. All of the concerns are in scope for this discussion.
> And if time is available:
> 6.      Issue-138: Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing formally ok?
> 7.      Issue-97: Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really accurate and representative?
> 8.      Any other business
>  
> For reference, The current editors draft of the Process Document [1].
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html
>  
> Steve Zilles

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 15:55:45 UTC