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

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

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:49:52 +0100
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <30311488826192@webcorp01h.yandex-team.ru>


04.03.2017, 05:10, "David Singer" <singer@mac.com>:
> Folks, we have a significant Issues database, and I think it doesn’t reflect where we are.

agreed

> 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;

That's because the CG we are camping in covers pretty much anything about W3C process and procedures.

> I am going to focus on that Product only.

That sees very sound.

> 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
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/115
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/121
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/129
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/138
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/145
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/159

I'm happy with the preceding list, leaving only.

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

Hmm. I think we should consider how this plays out in practice - which is less than wonderful.

> This issue was marked Postponed but I believe addressed:
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/132

Agreed.

> 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
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/134
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/135
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/166
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167

agreed.

> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/143 — editorial and rather vague
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/158 — a major topic of the process 2016 revision
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/174 — we dealt with Rescinding in 2016

Yes, we can close these IMHO.

> 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

I think there is an issue here we should keep open - and should be discussed with the AC. Although I suspect the resolution will be to close without a resolution one way or another.

> 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?

I think this needs to stay open.

> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/101 — diagrams are indeed substantially improved

They could do with more, but I am happy to close the issue since it's like "write better".

> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/131 — pending since 2014 and mostly addressed?

Not mostly addressed. I think we should try to deal with this in the next revision.

> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/142 — I think the answer is yes. The question is rather vague.

I *think* the answer is "yes" but I would like to confirm that others agree before closing.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - standards - Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 6 March 2017 18:50:27 UTC

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