- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:50:37 -0700
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> On Aug 30, 2016, at 12:42 , Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > >> So I think at least some of what you say below doesn’t apply. It’s not connected to the charter period, it’s connected to approval of the new charter and having it correctly document the carried-over work that’s “under the patent policy”. > > Let's take the recent example of the Web performance working group: > > On June 2, we extended their charter until end of July 31, 2016 and sent a new charter for review to the AC. > > On July 21, we published the CR for Resource Timing Level 1. > > On July 22, ie less than 60 days after the start of the AC review, we rechartered the Group under the new charter. > > Do you believe that this would be allowed under Process 2016? No.Two things stand out. The new charter would have listed "Resource Timing Level 1” as having passed FPWD, not CR. 1) the new working group would have had to start no earlier than August 1st (so, about 10 days later). 2) the CR transition would have had to happen as soon as the new WG formed. Dave Singer singer@mac.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 19:51:27 UTC