- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:38:53 -0500
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- CC: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 12/21/14 12:36 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote: > It takes a long time because it's complex, there are a lot of documents > involved in the AC review, the constraints on rechartering are not > light, Hi Daniel, I agree the chartering constraints in [PD-2014] don't appear to be designed/optimized for a WG like the CSSWG, thus I support addressing at least some of the concerns you raise (preferably in PD.Next). FYI, I just scanned the PD Issues list [Issues] and I did not notice any charter related Open issues. As such, perhaps it would be helpful if you created specific Tracker issue(s) that capture your concerns, and/or submit explicit change requests (against [PD-2014]) to this list (with appropriate Subject: headings). Lastly, re the CSSWG's latest [CSS-Charter], given the nature of that group, as an AC rep, it would be acceptable to me if the exhaustive timeline in 2.7 was eliminated. I also could live with less detailed Milestones data (and limit the data to only CR publication guestimates). (One editorial change I would make is to emphasize the CSS Roadmap document is *the* best source of data re the status of the group's specs - as is done in [WebApps-Charter].) -Thanks, AB [PD-2014] <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#WGCharterDevelopment> [Issues] <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues> [CSS-Charter] <http://www.w3.org/Style/2014/css-charter#deliverables> [WebApps-Charter] <http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html#milestones>
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 13:39:22 UTC