- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:27:50 -0700
- To: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
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.) <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues> Questions: 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 All CLOSED >> This issue was marked Postponed but I believe addressed: >> >> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/132 CLOSED >> 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 All CLOSED > >> 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 All CLOSED >> 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”. CLOSED * * * * 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 singer@mac.com
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 19:28:26 UTC