Re: Call for Consensus (in email) on closing out process 2019, ONE WEEK POLL closing NOV 15th

On 11/8/18 6:04 PM, David Singer wrote:> Folks
 >
 > Jeff has gently reminded me that I should have held the process call by now, in order to get 
Process 2019 to vote by the AC (and review by the AB and team). So, since we didn’t have a call this 
week (mea culpa)…
 >
 > This is a formal Call for Consensus on 4 questions below. Please respond within 7 days, i.e. by 
9am Pacific  on the 15th November.  These need to be binary yes/no or approve/reject responses, please.
 >
 > Looking at the remaining Issues, I believe that there are no issues that don’t have Pull Requests 
that are mature enough and urgent enough to address.
 >
 > The four questions:
 >
 > 1) The existing document at GitHub <https://w3c.github.io/w3process/> represents changes that we 
had consensus to incorporate. However, we have not established consensus that the resulting document 
should be sent ahead.  A diff with the current process (including, at the end, a summary of changes) 
can be seen by using the W3C Diff Service 
<https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2FProcess-20180201%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F>
 >
 > Do we have consensus to send at least the current draft <https://w3c.github.io/w3process/> on to 
the AB, W3M, and then AC for approval?

No. I disagree because I think https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/223 should
also be addressed for Process 2019.

I otherwise find this update to be an improvement and approve the changes.

 > 2) Pull Request: Sets the size of the AB to 9–11 https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/224
 > 3) Pull Request: Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR 
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/214
 > 4) Pull Request: Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the same maturity 
https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/215

Yes. +1 to all of these. I'm also OK with leaving out the addition to which Wendy objects,
although I'd prefer if she were able to more clearly explain what she's objecting to
so that the editors can maybe fix it more specifically. :)

--------

Minor comment on the diff (which is overall an improvement for sure):

“Please note that <del>publishing</del> <ins>Publishing a Working Draft</ins>
as used in this document refers to producing a version which is listed as a
W3C Technical Report on its Technical Reports page https://www.w3.org/TR .”

I think this change is a mistake, as we use publishing to refer to Notes and
Recommendations and Candidate Recommendations as well...

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 07:26:04 UTC