- From: Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 01:19:15 +1100
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "James Rosewell" <james@51degrees.com>
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 22:24:21 +1100, James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com> wrote: > I would be comfortable for the call to be scheduled for 8am Melbourne > time once a month. Thanks, but that particular time is usually really difficult for me. 11-3 (am or pm Melbourne time) is generally the reasonably workable band - the issue with the current time is primarily that it is a conflict with a crucial meeting I cannot change for a W3C meeting. cheers > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net> > Sent: 24 February 2021 07:12 > To: public-w3process@w3.org > Subject: Re: Agenda for the Process Call Wednesday 24 Feb 7am PDT, and > an email question for all on the list > > It is awkward in that it is 2am in Melbourne (when the US goes into > summer time it will revrt to midnight which is less painful) and it is > impossible in that it clashes directly with a core meeting for my day > job. > > cheers > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:13:15 +1100, David Singer <singer@apple.com> > wrote: > >> First, repeating the question: >> >> This meeting has been an 7am Pacific for a long time now; are there >> potential attendees, people who would like to attend, for whom this >> time is awkward, unpleasant, or impossible? Please respond to the >> chair or this list if so (and describing the conflict or problem). >> Thanks >> >> * * * * >> >> >> 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/2021/02/10-w3process-minutes.html> >> >> Usual meeting time: SECOND and FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7AM >> PACIFIC. >> >> >> >> Overall purpose: still trying to close down 2021 >> >> >> >> 1) Assign scribe, etc., >> >> 2) Agenda bash. >> >> 3) The Four Horsemen of the 2021 Process. Where are we, where are we >> going, and how do we get from here to there? >> >> 3.1) Tooling Policy. AB CfC is out to the AB, comments are coming in. >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/436> >> 3.2) Separate track for Notes. We’ve got good support from the AC. >> Time to land it? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/488> >> 3.3) Elevating Notes to W3C Hoojamaflips. Or do we prefer >> whadyamaycallits? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/489> >> 3.4) Registries. Survey results >> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/registries-chair-survey/results>. >> I believe Florian has recommendations on: >> 3.4.1) Separate track or say that definitions of a Registry must >> be published in a Recommendation? >> 3.4.2) If we have a separate track, is a CR indicating “we think >> the definition is ready for people to kick the tyres” useful or not? >> 3.4.3) Should we allow tables and registries to be published >> separately or require togetherness? >> >> 4) Issues that the AC gave us last time we asked for a review; we >> should probably try to clean up? >> >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/AC-review> >> >> 5) Process 2021, The Milestone >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/milestone/6> (long list) >> >> P2021 Priority, shorter list >> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/P2021%3A%20Priority> >> >> #130 on enumerating the requirements for Wide Review. Covered well >> enough, so close? See also <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/401> >> >> (all else is Registries etc. and covered elsewhere) >> >> >> 6) Other Pull Requests (other than agenda+, Needs AB Feedback, or a >> priority) >> >> #299 Any decision can be objected to >> #401 Proposes changes to wide/horizontal review; lots of discussion, >> what can we land? >> #433 Simplify the text on liaisons. Does this go back to the AB, as >> it touches on members that are consortia (maybe they should be >> liaisons with a specific WG?) >> #434 (face to face) Meetings of new groups are 8 weeks from charter >> approval >> #485 possible missing link (editorial) >> >> >> The usual closers: >> >> 7) Next meeting. 10 March >> >> 8) Any other business. >> >> >> David Singer >> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple >> >> singer@apple.com >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Charles "chaals" Nevile > ConsenSys Lead Standards Architect > > This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be > privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender > immediately and do not disclose, use, store or copy the information > contained herein. This is an email from 51Degrees.mobi Limited, 9 > Greyfriars Road, Reading. RG1 1NU. T: +44 118 328 7152; E: > info@51degrees.com; 51Degrees.mobi Limited t/as 51Degrees. -- Charles "chaals" Nevile ConsenSys Lead Standards Architect
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2021 14:19:34 UTC