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:

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/34
	Remove the Good Standing rules from the process document?

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/115
	Revising the Activity Statement for each Activity every 6 months

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/121
	Intellectual property information.in charters

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/129
	Should the Process define Coordination Groups?

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/138
	Does the process assume ‘an’ editor, or is group-editing formally ok?

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140
	The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/144
	Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/145
	Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148
	Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152
	Process2014 Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154
	SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews?

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/159
	Remove the current circularity in definition of "editorial change”


This issue was marked Postponed but I believe addressed:

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/132
	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:

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/7
	Make appealing decisions more believably possible and available

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/134
	Appeal against decisions *not* to create a group?

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/135
	Direct appeal of WG decisions for AC?

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164
	Clean up the description of Appeals throughout the Process Document

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165
	Where and how should an appealable decision be identified

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/166
	How should appeals for decisions not mentioned in the Process Document be documented

https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167
	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

singer@mac.com
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