12.01.2015, 22:39, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>:

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

Whoohoo! I don't have any. (Nor does anyone else…)

2.      Do we agree that CfC on not requiring an interim TAG election due to two participants from same organization reached a consensus

With objection recorded, yes

and the text should be in Process2015?

It is in there, first bullet in 2.5.1
[[[
]]] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#AB-TAG-constraints (emphasis mine)

 

3.      ISSUE-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140

This is implemented as (far as I understand the way it was) resolved in the latest (January 11) draft.

6.      ISSUE-128: Lack of test cases is a major contributor to schedule delay.

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/128
Can this issue be closed as “no further change to the Process”?

IMHO Yes

 

7.      Continue Review of Latest Process Document Draft
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0138.html

8.      ISSUE-100: Should it be possible to publish a pr before a call for exclusion ends
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/100

IMHO Yes

9.      Any Other Business

Can we please open:
ISSUE-130 "Should the Process define Business and Community Groups?" with the related ISSUE-4 (is it a good idea to have 2 patent policies)? [130],[4]
 
I believe the answer is "yes, these things are significant in their impact on W3C and how it works, and should be part of the process, although I don't have a detailed proposal and don't expect to get anything done before the current revision is frozen.
 
ISSUE-131 Requirements for Meetings and Workshops [131]
 
I'm writing a proposal for that now
 
ISSUE-151 How to resign from a Working Group [151]
 
There is a proposed resolution in the description
 
Can we please resolve ISSUE-97 Is is appropriate for the Advisory Board to use "board" in their name [97] by closing it with the answer "possibly not, but changing it is likely to be less appropriate".
 
[4] https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/4
[130] https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/130
[131] https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/131
[151] https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/151
 
Cheers
 
Chaals
 
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com