- From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:27:48 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Boris, Question inline below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu] > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:03 PM > To: David (Standards) Singer > Cc: Arthur Barstow; Philippe Le Hegaret; public-w3process@w3.org > Subject: Re: Comment tracking for navigation-timing CR [Was: Re: publishing > new WD of URL spec] > > On 9/11/14, 5:17 PM, David (Standards) Singer wrote: > > An interesting point, but it seems tangential to this firestorm, and more of a > problem of balls being dropped than a poorly defined process, no? > > If it were an isolated incident, perhaps. > > The other process issue I mentioned in this thread, in case you missed it, is that > the bar for issuing errata seems to be high enough that no one ever does. [SZ] The bar for issuing errata is having put a pointer to an errata page in the original REC. http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#errata The catch with this is that such errata does not become Normative until an Edited Recommendation is approved by the AC. http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#revised-rec That was done to insure that the AC approved all RECs (whether initial or edited) and that appropriate Calls for (Patent) Exclusions take place. Is it this last piece that you find overly burdensome? If so, what would you suggest instead? > > -Boris >
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 09:28:22 UTC