- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 15:01:27 +0200
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
> On Jul 8, 2021, at 1:46, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > Colleagues, > > we have very few comments and issues from informal AC review. We should address them and get the Process document out for formal ballot and acceptance. > > Soon I would like to get consensus on the adjusted process. But before that I want to check: > > * I think we should consider a minor edit to address #552, Archiving discussion attachments <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/552>. Elika and I have provided some ideas, other thoughts welcome, I support this change, and it seems fairly innocuous to me. I stand ready to land the suggestion proposed in this issue as soon as you declare a decision to do so as a chair. > * We should iterate on #541 Clarification about horizontal review <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/541> and merge it. But I don’t think we have quite landed. Help, please? No strong opinion on this one. > * I bungled and remembered accessibility for products and missed it for tools. We have two pull requests to address this, ahem, oversight, and I think that the editor prefers #539: > #539 Minimal edit to put emphasis on people with disabilities rather than cost for tooling accessibility <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/539> > #538 Explicitly require tools be accessible to people with disability <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/538> > We should iterate on #539 and merge it also. (editor here. I do indeed prefer 539. 538 has some unintended and undesirable side effects). As far as I can tell, the questions that have been raised against 539 have all been answered, so I believe it is ready to merge. —Florian
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2021 13:05:27 UTC