W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > July 2016

Re: Draft intro to Process 2016 Document to be sent to

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:38:47 -0700
Cc: ab@w3.org, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <3FA473C4-F126-40FB-9E9F-3E5960C92304@apple.com>
To: Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:39 , Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org> wrote:
> 
> All,
> As promised at the last AB Telcon, I have drafted a cover letter to go with the proposed Process 2016 draft to be sent to the AC for consideration and comments. 
>  
> Steve Z
> 


Thanks. I’m not sure I would repeat the text of the Process, in this introduction, but I don’t have a strong position either way. (In a sense, I’d prefer that they read it in context, and we supply them with a Diff).

Initial minor comments:

> Since all these decision are binary (that is, the content of the affected
> Recommendation, except for the Status section, does not change), Wide Review
> prior to the AC (and Public) Review is not required or necessary. Anyone can
> request one of these actions. If the Working Group that produced the
> specification is still extent

Suggest: "For a few reasons — to streamline the process, because it’s a simple yes/no question (that is, the content of the affected Recommendation, except for the Status section, does not change), and because we would only obsolete when we don’t know of anyone to contact to ask for wide review — Wide Review prior to the AC (and Public) Review is not required or necessary."

s/extent/extant/

> This opens an IP exposure for W3C because we don't have
> commitments from their employers just from the Consortium.

needs a comma after “employers”


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.


Received on Friday, 29 July 2016 16:39:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:38 UTC