- From: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:50:49 +0000
- To: "singer@apple.com" <singer@apple.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Elika <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- CC: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Regrets for today. I have a doctor's appointment. I think that Elika's proposal is well-worth considering. Tzviya Siegman Information Standards Lead Wiley 201-748-6884 tsiegman@wiley.com -----Original Message----- From: singer@apple.com <singer@apple.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 1:03 PM To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>; Elika <fantasai@inkedblade.net>; Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> Cc: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>; Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>; Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>; Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> Subject: Re: DRAFT agenda for the regular Process Call Wednesday 12th June 7am PDT You’re right, but do we have such write-ups? > On Jun 10, 2019, at 19:30 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > David, > > I don't think that the agenda that you published is what we agreed to in the last call. > > In the last call, we spent most of the time discussing whether to have an experimental ER track or whether to fold the requirements for issue #79 into the current REC track. > > I took the position that either was acceptable assuming that we could get them solved quickly, but since we have been working on ER for months and there is no proposal to solve the issue #79 use cases in the REC track we needed to see a proposal and make the determination quickly. > > To address that, several people volunteered to write up the modifications for the REC track and get it done in the 3 intervening weeks. I thought that the main purpose of this week's call is to assess whether this proposal (a) achieves our goals and (b) is likely to get through PSIG for its PP revisions. I don't see that in this agenda. > > Below, I excerpt from [1] the main summary points. > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/05/22-w3process-minutes.html > > jeff: I don't actually understand where we ended on the ER meta-question? > > dsinger: fantasai &co will write up for the next call what they mean > by an alternative approach ... what specifically do we need to do ... > for the revising process approach ... We have 4 people who push that, > asking to write it up -- what exactly do you mean by that > > jeff: So next call we'll have "fix the process" proposal and we'll > have the "evergreen experiment" proposal ... An we can look at both of > them, see how they solve use cases and what time frames seem possible > ... and then figure out what to do next > > dsinger: we won't eliminate all choices, but roll a lot of evergreen > aspects into main process ... evergreen plus snapshots, or rec track, > choice for maintenance ... I think we need to see what they look like, A or B? > > florian: I think direction we characterize is good, might take more > than 2 weeks for all details > > On 6/10/2019 6:17 PM, David Singer wrote: >> Webex at >> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2019May/0000 >> .html> >> >> >> >> >> IRC is #w3process >> >> Log of prior meeting at >> <https://www.w3.org/2019/05/22-w3process-minutes.html> >> >> >> >> Usual meeting time: SECOND and FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7AM >> PACIFIC >> >> >> 1) Assign scribe, etc., >> >> 2) We need to make progress on Registries. Please review the Wiki >> text at >> >> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Repositories#Recommendation> >> >> and its supporting issue >> >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/168> >> >> >> I would like consensus to take this >> a) into Process-text drafting >> b) back to the people who said they needed a registry process, to >> see if they have comments >> >> 3) Editorials, and (Other) Pull Requests and Issues tagged Agenda+ >> >> 3.1) Approving in bulk the editorial updates, please review offline as we won’t have time on the call: >> >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Type%3A%20editorial%20improv >> ements> >> >> >> 3.2) Pull Requests: >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AA >> genda%2B> >> >> 3.3) Issues: >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissu >> e+label%3AAgenda%2B+> >> >> >> 4) If we have time, Review of 2020 milestone; who has the action, where are we going, what’s next? >> >> 4.1) assigned to someone: >> >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aope >> n+milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+assignee%3A*> >> >> >> 4.2) unassigned: >> >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aope >> n+milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+no%3Aassignee> >> >> >> 5) If we have time, new issues and updates. >> >> 5.1) new since prior check: >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aope >> n+created%3A%3E2019-03-13+> >> >> >> 5.2) updated but not Process2020 milestone >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissu >> e+updated%3A%3E2019-05-22+-milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22> >> >> >> 6) If we have time, Assigned, but not on the 2020 milestone >> >> >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+assignee% >> 3A*+-milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22> >> ) >> >> 7) Next meeting. formally Wed June 26th >> >> 8) Any other business. >> >> >> David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2019 12:51:18 UTC