- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:51:54 -0700
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 20:31 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > > > On 10/2/2018 11:20 PM, David Singer wrote: >> >>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 17:30 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> Can we make #79 the highest priority among these? >>> >> How so? I am unaware of any >> >> a) substantive feedback from the AB on the process discussion > > Since the last Process call I added the use cases section. > >> b) substantive feedback from a constituency wanting to use an Evergreen process (‘we want to use it but we think <this> needs <that>’) > > This is a chicken-and-egg problem. The process is not yet clear enough for a constituency to stand up to say they will use it. That is why the Process CG needs to make more progress. Really? What is not clear of the long descriptions on the Wiki? I am unenthused about reducing this narrative style to formal process text until there’s some buy-in. What’s missing? David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2018 18:52:20 UTC