W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > March 2017

Cleaning up the Issues database, Please respond by EOB March 17 2017

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 15:08:18 -0800
Message-id: <4E71BEB9-21E3-4757-9E9F-F28C998A0461@mac.com>
To: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Folks, we have a significant Issues database, and I think it doesn’t reflect where we are.

See <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues>

Note that for some reason we have issues on other than the process document in there; I am going to focus on that Product only. I’d like to close the following issues.  Please tell me if I should not before 17 March 2017.  We can then focus on sorting the remaining issues into OPEN (i.e. we’ve taken them up) RAISED (not yet considered) or POSTPONED.

I claim that the following Issues, which are in PENDING REVIEW, were addressed in existing, adopted revisions of the Process Document and can be closed:

	Remove the Good Standing rules from the process document?

	Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 months

	Intellectual property information.in charters

	Should the Process define Coordination Groups?

	Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing formally ok?

	The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

	Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review

	Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc

	Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document

	Process2014 Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs

	SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews?

	Remove the current circularity in definition of "editorial change”

This issue was marked Postponed but I believe addressed:

	Change the voting system for elections?

These issues were RAISED, but I think can be closed:

We did a major pass on appeals in 2016:

	Make appealing decisions more believably possible and available

	Appeal against decisions *not* to create a group?

	Direct appeal of WG decisions for AC?

	Clean up the description of Appeals throughout the Process Document

	Where and how should an appealable decision be identified

	How should appeals for decisions not mentioned in the Process Document be documented

	Allow appeal of the Director's rejection of a Proposal up for AC Review if there were positive reviews

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/143 — editorial and rather vague
	The grammar in the abstract is somewhat unclear

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/158 — a major topic of the process 2016 revision
	Does rechartering extinguish a WG or continue it?

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/174 — we dealt with Rescinding in 2016
	Rescinding a Recommendation in conflict with later versions and patent obligations

Finally, these issues were OPEN but I think can be closed:

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/55 — note a process Issue, but practice (Process merely requires the meeting)
	AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/93 — not clear what the question being asked is
	What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG?

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/101 — diagrams are indeed substantially improved
	Improve the diagrams in the Process document

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/131 — pending since 2014 and mostly addressed?
	Clarify the requirements on meetings and workshops

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/142 — I think the answer is yes. The question is rather vague.
	Are the role and structure of the AB adequately defined?

Dave Singer

Received on Saturday, 4 March 2017 04:10:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:43 UTC