- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:14:13 +0200
- To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Cc: timeless@gmail.com, David Singer <singer@mac.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
On 2016-05-25 19:37, Michael Champion wrote: > Is a "Memorandum of Understanding" essentially an agreement that > somebody (Director? CEO? Random person on the staff?) decides doesn't > need a member review? In our use of the term, it's the opposite: something that requires member review. I'm not asking to change that, but to provide a definition for the term. > > -----Original Message----- > From: timeless.bmo1@gmail.com [mailto:timeless.bmo1@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of timeless > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:27 AM > To: David Singer <singer@mac.com> > Cc: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>; public-w3process > <public-w3process@w3.org>; Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> > Subject: Re: Proposed W3C Process changes for MoU > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:58 PM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote: >> In a formal definition, I would expect the term to be expanded: >> >> MoU: Memorandum of Understanding: … >> >> "something else that an MoU” -> "something other than an MoU” > > agreed
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2016 18:14:26 UTC