- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:07:34 -0600
- To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 07:03 AM 5/9/02 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: >October 6/7 would be good. For the March tech plenary, I suggest a >meeting over 2 days. At the last tech plenary, 1 day wasn't enough time. That is agreed. But there was some thought that less than 2 days would be okay this time, given that we will will have a 2-day f2f less than two months before tech plen. Also, anticipation that the Framework will be finished, and that we will want to spend a significant amount of time on outreach and liaison with the WGs. But that detail can wait some time before final decision. -Lofton. >lynne > > >At 02:16 PM 5/8/02, Lofton Henderson wrote: >>QAWG participants -- >> >>We have had some preliminary discussion at the AC meeting about the next >>f2f after Montreal. We are thinking Japan/Pacific in early October. One >>option would be Tokyo in early October. To avoid known conflicts, it >>would look like Mon-Tues, 6/7 October would be best. >> >>For perspective, we are looking at this approximate long-term schedule: >> >>Sept-Oct: next Frm publication (at least FPWD of all parts?) >>Oct: meeting >>Jan: meeting and Last Call publication for all Frm parts. >>March tech plenary: 1-day QAWG meeting; outreach/education/liaison about >>Framework. >> >>What are your thoughts on the proposed next meeting? >> >>-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2002 12:06:53 UTC