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

Re: Cleaning up the Issues database, action taken

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:27:50 -0700
To: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <09F20978-C106-4729-BEB3-E1EA59CF4B0D@mac.com>
Hi action completed as below. At the end, please find a summary of where we now stand. I moved one Issue from Pending Review back to Open since we did not have consensus that it had been completely addressed.

(Someone should look at the issues on other products than the Process Document, ahem. I confine myself only to that product.)


a) do we want to move the remaining Issues to GitHub Issues at this point?
b) are we ready in GitHub with the Process Document itself?
c) Would people like to continue this triage in email, or handle it when we have all this infrastructure work done, when the calls resume (yes, a doodle poll will be coming soon).

My taste on (c): if there is any other easy cleanup and sorting to do, let’s do it offline.  So, any issues in Open that we all agree we WON’T address, or any Raised that we all agree we WILL address, we could move now.  It would be nice if the Open list was the ones we want to spend time on.

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 10:49 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>> 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


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


>> 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


>> 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


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


* * * * The Current State * * * *

1 Pending Review Issue; since we can’t CLOSE it, I have moved this back to Open for further consideration:

ISSUE-144	Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review

Open Issues; this means we agreed previously we should work on them; we should review this list and move to Postponed or Raised any issues we don’t intend to work on:

ISSUE-55	AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings
ISSUE-93	What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG?
ISSUE-131	Clarify the requirements on meetings and workshops
ISSUE-133	Are the role and make-up of the TAG adequately defined?
ISSUE-141	Improve Errata management in W3C
ISSUE-142	Are the role and structure of the AB adequately defined?
ISSUE-157	Requirements for republishing a CR with non-substantive changes
ISSUE-162	Should participants in Working Groups be allowed to represent more than one organisation?
ISSUE-168	Are W3C hosts members of W3C?
ISSUE-169	Consensus on a Team Submission
ISSUE-170	Meeting guests need to respect patent policy
ISSUE-172	What is a "Memorandum of Understanding”?

Raised Issues; we need to decide whether to take any of these up.

ISSUE-106	The graveyard of /TR
ISSUE-126	Automatic WD publishing tool may change the W3C center of gravity around WGs
ISSUE-127	Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, ...)
ISSUE-130	Should the Process define Business and Community Groups?
ISSUE-136	Does process adequately cater for public input
ISSUE-139	What are the rights and obligations of non-member participants in the creation of a member submission
ISSUE-149	Are there things the director should not be able to delegate?
ISSUE-155	Errata access from TR page
ISSUE-156	Do we need separate Errata and REC Track Processes?
ISSUE-160	Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause
ISSUE-161	Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter
ISSUE-163	How should consortia which are members of W3C nominate representatives and commit IPR?
ISSUE-173	Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document
ISSUE-175	Can a group member represent more than one organisation?
ISSUE-176	Substantive changes undefined for Charter and Process reviews
ISSUE-177	Editorial changes often called "minor changes"
ISSUE-178	Add CEPC in the Process Document
ISSUE-179	Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG?
ISSUE-180	"Implementation experience" description should clearly identify likelihood of broad acceptance
ISSUE-181	A sentence was removed in the AC meeting and it, or something like it, should be put back
ISSUE-182	Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year

Dave Singer

Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 19:28:26 UTC

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