- From: Jay Kishigami <jay@kishigami.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 23:14:38 +0900
- To: Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, public-w3process@w3.org
- CC: ab@w3.org
Hi, Sorry for regreting. I just check this email now. I entered IRC and telephone call on 20th, but failed so... Best, Jay (10/21/2014 Tue 7:58 AM), Steve Zilles wrote: > The call information for the Tuesday, 21 October, Process Document TF is > > Tuesdays14:00-15:00 UTC > <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=08&day=26&year=2014&hour=14&min=00&sec=0&p1=0>(10:00am-11:00am > Boston local) > Zakim Bridge+1.617.761.6200 <tel:+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-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 document is out of date 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> > > 3.Issue-137: Rationalise the heartbeats in chapter 6 and 7 > <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/137> > > 4.Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C > <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141> > 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. See also, the discussion at last week’s > Telcon: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0138.html > > and Proposal and associated discussion thread beginning at: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0139.html > > 5.Issue-144: Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review > <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/144> > > 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. > > See thread announcing the results of the CfC: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0157.html > > And if time is available: > > 6.Issue-138: Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing > formally ok? <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/138> > > 7.Issue-97: Is using the term "Board" in "Advisory Board" really > accurate and representative? > <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/97> > > 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 > -- Jay Kishigami 岸上順一 090 2652 6553
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 14:15:10 UTC