- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:56:50 -0700
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <558D5A22.3030708@linux.intel.com>
I thought it was a third :) Each of the Process CG and AB Task Force that works with the CG should switch to GitHub issues as a way to make decisions - so each have their own separate GitHub repository and use Issues instead of phone calls. As I understood it, the phone calls were the AB Task Force, not the CG. The AB Task Force controlled what was actually proposed (to the full AB I assume, but eventually to the AC), not the Process CG. So, I don't think there has been any delegation to the CG, just a discussion in the CG. The AC could use GitHub as well, for the same reasons. Given the AC mail list is member confidential, they'd need a private, organizational GitHub repository limited to W3C Member accounts. One issue with that is On 2015-06-26 06:01, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > Mike, > > It's not clear to me which question you are asking. > > 1. One interpretation is that the AB has previously delegated its > formal process revision responsibility to the CG under a task force > led by Steve Zilles - and you are suggesting that the AB revoke that > formal delegation - instead managing the formal process revision > directly and using GitHub as a means for the community to > collaboratively edit the process and prepare new revisions. If that > is your intent, we can certainly ask the AB at its July call. > > 2. A second interpretation is that you want to keep the AB delegation > to the CG, but are recommending that the CG use a different set of > tools to propose revisions. In that case, the CG would need to reach > consensus, and the opinions of the task force Chair (Steve), document > editor (Chaals McCathie Nevile), and CG Chair (Chaals McCathie Nevile) > would be influential. > > Jeff > > On 6/25/2015 9:23 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: >> > weekly Process Task Force, >> >> I'd like to discuss whether the demise of Zakim is a good opportunity >> to retire this call and find a better way of collaborating on process >> revision. >> >> The trend is to use GitHub to collaboratively edit specs and its >> issues tracker rather than unstructured email threads to resolve >> issues. I believe the Process CG and the AB task force should eat >> this dog food and get away from conference calls as its discussion >> and decision making mode. >> >> Anyone disagree? assuming so, where do we have the conversation and >> resolve the issue? >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> From: Maria Auday <mailto:maria@w3.org> >> Sent: ý6/ý25/ý2015 2:58 PM >> To: public-w3process@w3.org <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> >> Cc: Jeff Jaffe <mailto:jeff@w3.org> >> Subject: Webex details for Process Task Force >> >> Hello, >> >> Below are the Webex details for the weekly Process Task Force, >> effective 30 June. Please let me know if you have any questions. >> >> Topic: Process Task Force >> Date: From Tuesday, June 30, 2015, to no end date >> Time: 10:00 am, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00) >> >> Dial-in: +1-617-324-0000 >> Access code: 641 501 274 >> >> Meeting number: 641 501 274 >> Meeting password: process >> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mbea8090287ebcf2d2cbf4b3a2b15dda9 >> Host key: 628756 >> >> Regards, >> >> Maria >> --- >> >> Maria Auday >> Executive Assistant to Dr. Jeffrey Jaffe, CEO >> W3C, World Wide Web Consortium at MIT >> Phone: +1.617.324.0368 >> maria@w3.org >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 26 June 2015 13:57:20 UTC