- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:55:53 +1000
- To: "'WCAG-WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:57:42AM +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote: > Of course there is nothing for me to gain by reading the minuets because > text like > " > ... refer 532 back to editors > ... accept 575 as amended > ... 586 adopted as currently revised " > > is unusable. I agree. However, under section 7.2 of the W3C Process Document (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/) the working group is required, at this stage, formally to address all comments received. Under section 3.3.3, the working group should maintain a record of its decisions and the substantive responses made to reviewers' comments. Instead of reading meeting minutes, I plan to wait until the substantive responses start coming out in order to keep track of how the document is developing. Of course, I'll be paying particular attention to the substantive responses to issues that I raised, and I am sure that other Last Call reviewers will be doing the same. I am not denying that meeting minutes could be better kept, only suggesting that they are not a substitute for the substantive responses that the working group will give, which should include technical rationale for each decision.
Received on Friday, 30 June 2006 08:56:02 UTC