W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Agenda Process Document Task Force Tuesday, 24 March 2015

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:11:04 -0700
Message-ID: <55107358.7090904@linux.intel.com>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 2015-03-23 06:14, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> Regrets due to travel.  Comments in-line.
> On 3/23/2015 2:42 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>> The call is on Tuesday, 24 March, 2015 at 14:00-15:00 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 were:
>> Pacific:  7:00
>> Eastern US: 10:00
>> Central Europe: 15:00
>> Japan: 23:00
>> 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.Continue review Wayne Carrs Comments on the Process 2015 draft out 
>> for Review
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0023.html
>> 3.Discuss Appeals in the Process Document
> I am sympathetic to the views expressed by the Chair in his recent post.
> Namely, that once we sweep up the substantial number of cases that 
> people have raised (and even a few that have not yet been raised), it 
> makes more sense to do it "properly and comprehensively" as part of 
> Process2016; rather than a rush job at the tail end of Process2015.

I think the proposed wording handles those use cases that were raised by 
the two Davids.   I don't think anyone has said it doesn't.  I also 
haven't heard anyone suggest it does anything harmful.  There is sloppy 
wording elsewhere and putting that off is fine - no one suggested there 
is an actual problem due to those and they could be fixed later.  I'd 
already dropped this once, but David and David brought up use cases that 
this handles that may convince people its worthwhile.  We seem to be 
rejecting it now, because it solves the problems they brought up.  If 
there are actual objections, I  understand that.  If people think it 
could have some unforseen bad consequence I'd understand that too 
(though it seems to simply allow something we can have if one AC rep 
always makes a silly objection so how harmful can it be?).  But, we seem 
to be seeing what looks to me like support as a reason not to do it :) 
(or that other wording is sloppy too.).  This isn't a huge thing -- I'm 
just wondering if there is some actual concrete objection from the 
person who objects.

In any case, the part about adding the appeal for relicensing abandoned 
specs to the list should not be controversial.  It is a policy that 
contains an appeal and it was approved after Process 2014.  It's just 
changing the text to reflect this new, already approved appeal.

>> 4.Review other Open and Raised Issues
>> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/
>> 5.Any Other Business
>> Steve Zilles
>> Chair, Process Document Task Force
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 20:12:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 March 2015 20:12:05 UTC