W3C Process Community Group - Activity in 2018
No matches.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
3 issues opened.
-
WDs are incorrectly characterized in 6.2.1 w3c/process#235, by @dwsinger.
-
RFC2777 is obsolete w3c/process#233, by @frivoal.
-
Section 1 Introduction, general overview w3c/process#232, by @RachelComerford.
-
-
2 issues closed.
-
RFC2777 is obsolete w3c/process#233.
-
Editorial improvements to obsolete/superceded w3c/process#138.
-
-
1 issue reopened.
-
define "independent" w3c/process#167, by @dwsinger.
-
-
11 issues received 27 new comments.
-
TAG appointment should be via IETF style nomcom w3c/process#230 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
"Implementation experience" description should clearly identify likelihood of broad acceptance w3c/process#32 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG? w3c/process#31 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
1 pull request opened.
-
Replace RFC2777 with RFC3797 w3c/process#234, by @frivoal.
-
-
2 pull requests merged.
-
Replace RFC2777 with RFC3797 w3c/process#234.
-
Another stab at 2.5.1 w3c/process#231.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
Editorial fix w3c/process#229.
-
-
3 pull requests received 9 new comments.
Participants
-
1 participant joined.
-
Dean Edridge joined.
-
-
1 participant left.
-
Dean Edridge left.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
1 issue opened.
-
TAG appointment should be via IETF style nomcom w3c/process#230, by @nrooney.
-
-
11 issues closed.
-
CSI Document w3c/process#201.
-
Policy on use of W3C's github repo w3c/process#194.
-
address/recognize funding barriers to elected bodies? w3c/process#189.
-
Should we have term limits for the AB (and possibly TAG)? w3c/process#165.
-
What should be the effect of voting for No Other Candidate w3c/process#47.
-
What are the requirements to update a CR? w3c/process#207.
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172.
-
Should the AB and maybe TAG have lower/upper bounds for membership? w3c/process#204.
-
-
21 issues received 68 new comments.
-
Allow AB to choose its own chair w3c/process#223 (20 comments by @caribouW3, @chaals, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion, @nrooney, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Are W3C hosts members of W3C? w3c/process#10 (14 comments by @caribouW3, @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
TAG appointment should be via IETF style nomcom w3c/process#230 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
What should be the effect of voting for No Other Candidate w3c/process#47 (3 comments by @chaals, @cwilso, @dwsinger)
-
Removal of "Member" from 2.5.1: unintended consequences w3c/process#208 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @swickr)
-
address/recognize funding barriers to elected bodies? w3c/process#189 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @nrooney)
-
AB and TAG nominations should be announced as they occur and not wait until close of noms w3c/process#193 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Should there be good standing / supermajority criteria in authoritative ballots? w3c/process#76 (1 comment by @chaals)
-
Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG? w3c/process#31 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
"Implementation experience" description should clearly identify likelihood of broad acceptance w3c/process#32 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Substantive changes undefined for Charter, Process reviews, and things other than specifications w3c/process#28 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
Should the AB and maybe TAG have lower/upper bounds for membership? w3c/process#204 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
-
7 pull requests opened.
-
Another stab at 2.5.1 w3c/process#231, by @nrooney.
-
Editorial fix w3c/process#229, by @xfq.
-
Revert to an earlier phrasing w3c/process#228, by @frivoal.
-
Avoid implying that elected members of the AB/TAG represent an organisation w3c/process#227, by @frivoal.
-
Let the AB choose its chair(s) and make the CEO an ex officio member w3c/process#225, by @frivoal.
-
Sets the size of the AB to 9–11 w3c/process#224, by @frivoal.
-
-
6 pull requests merged.
-
Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the same maturity w3c/process#215.
-
Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR w3c/process#214.
-
Sets the size of the AB to 9–11 w3c/process#224.
-
Revert to an earlier phrasing w3c/process#228.
-
Fix typo w3c/process#226.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
The number of elected AB member may vary between 9 and 11 w3c/process#216.
-
-
9 pull requests received 57 new comments.
-
Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR w3c/process#214 (39 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt, @swickr, @wseltzer)
-
Let the AB choose its chair(s) and make the CEO an ex officio member w3c/process#225 (5 comments by @cwilso, @frivoal, @LJWatson)
-
Avoid implying that elected members of the AB/TAG represent an organisation w3c/process#227 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @swickr)
-
Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the same maturity w3c/process#215 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Participants
-
1 participant left.
-
Kai Scheppe left.
-
-
3 organizations joined.
-
Spec-Ops joined.
-
J. Paul Getty Trust joined.
-
HM Government joined.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
1 issue opened.
-
Allow AB to choose its own chair w3c/process#223, by @fantasai.
-
-
9 issues closed.
-
Written notification? w3c/process#83.
-
Transparency w3c/process#116.
-
Should the Process define Business and Community Groups? w3c/process#17.
-
Removal of "Member" from 2.5.1: unintended consequences w3c/process#208.
-
Member submissions w3c/process#169.
-
Maturity Levels w3c/process#155.
-
-
15 issues received 75 new comments.
-
Should the AB and maybe TAG have lower/upper bounds for membership? w3c/process#204 (20 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Substantive changes undefined for Charter, Process reviews, and things other than specifications w3c/process#28 (12 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @wseltzer)
-
Allow AB to choose its own chair w3c/process#223 (7 comments by @cwilso, @fantasai, @LJWatson, @nrooney, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt, @wseltzer)
-
Removal of "Member" from 2.5.1: unintended consequences w3c/process#208 (7 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @wseltzer)
-
Process supporting "Living Standards"? w3c/process#79 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt)
-
Document how to move work from a Community Group into a WG Rec Track document w3c/process#180 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
We need a process for handling registries, APIs and other 'enumerations' w3c/process#168 (1 comment by @edent)
-
Should participants in Working Groups be allowed to represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#9 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
-
12 pull requests opened.
-
Clarify wording w3c/process#222, by @frivoal.
-
Refer to the separate CG an BG process document. w3c/process#221, by @frivoal.
-
Allow representation of multiple members w3c/process#219, by @frivoal.
-
Require a return for additional work for substantive changes w3c/process#218, by @frivoal.
-
Defines substantive and editorial changes for charters w3c/process#217, by @frivoal.
-
The number of elected AB member may vary between 9 and 11 w3c/process#216, by @frivoal.
-
Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the same maturity w3c/process#215, by @frivoal.
-
Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR w3c/process#214, by @frivoal.
-
Clarify superseding w3c/process#213, by @frivoal.
-
Clarification on Member submissions w3c/process#212, by @frivoal.
-
Make sure that FPWD is actually defined w3c/process#211, by @frivoal.
-
-
6 pull requests merged.
-
Clarify wording w3c/process#222.
-
Refer to the separate CG an BG process document. w3c/process#221.
-
Allow representation of multiple members w3c/process#219.
-
Clarification on Member submissions w3c/process#212.
-
Make sure that FPWD is actually defined w3c/process#211.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
Allow representation of multiple members w3c/process#54.
-
-
10 pull requests received 68 new comments.
-
Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR w3c/process#214 (29 comments by @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt)
-
Clarify superseding w3c/process#213 (11 comments by @caribouW3, @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @swickr)
-
Refer to the separate CG an BG process document. w3c/process#221 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt, @wseltzer)
-
Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the same maturity w3c/process#215 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Defines substantive and editorial changes for charters w3c/process#217 (3 comments by @frivoal, @wseltzer)
-
Clarify that "at most one" participant in AB/TAG is only about elected / appointed seats w3c/process#220 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
3 issues opened.
-
Removal of "Member" from 2.5.1: unintended consequences w3c/process#208, by @wseltzer.
-
What are the requirements to update a CR? w3c/process#207, by @dwsinger.
-
Should the AB and maybe TAG have lower/upper bounds for membership? w3c/process#204, by @dwsinger.
-
-
8 issues closed.
-
define "transition request" w3c/process#160.
-
Representativity on the TAG w3c/process#163.
-
Increase membership of the AB, possibly TAG w3c/process#190.
-
href for Candidate Rec link is broken fragment w3c/process#171.
-
Working Group and Interest Group charter extension w3c/process#177.
-
17 issues received 75 new comments.
-
Increase membership of the AB, possibly TAG w3c/process#190 (14 comments by @chaals, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion)
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172 (10 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt)
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60 (10 comments by @cwilso, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
Should the AB and maybe TAG have lower/upper bounds for membership? w3c/process#204 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Removal of "Member" from 2.5.1: unintended consequences w3c/process#208 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Define charter review process to require addressing comments as in CR transitions w3c/process#182 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Hard Requirements for Security, Privacy, Internationalisation and Accessibility Considerations w3c/process#117 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter w3c/process#24 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Document how to move work from a Community Group into a WG Rec Track document w3c/process#180 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Contrast 'immediately' vacated seats and seats vacated at the next election w3c/process#175 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
The term "Affiliation" is used in several places but not strictly defined w3c/process#176 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
-
5 pull requests opened.
-
editorial clarification w3c/process#210, by @wseltzer.
-
Grammar/editorial w3c/process#209, by @wseltzer.
-
Update metadata w3c/process#206, by @frivoal.
-
Fix markup issues w3c/process#205, by @frivoal.
-
define affiliation as in #176 w3c/process#203, by @dwsinger.
-
-
10 pull requests merged.
-
editorial clarification w3c/process#210.
-
Grammar/editorial w3c/process#209.
-
Fix markup issues w3c/process#205.
-
Update metadata w3c/process#206.
-
define "transition request" w3c/process#195.
-
Update #last-call to #candidate-rec links w3c/process#187.
-
non-member license commitment w3c/process#196.
-
Increase the size of the AB. w3c/process#202.
-
define affiliation as in #176 w3c/process#203.
-
Changes from Process CG call w3c/process#200.
-
-
2 pull requests closed.
-
Update note per #172 w3c/process#181.
-
Add text on vacating TAG and AB seats w3c/process#186.
-
-
1 pull request reopened.
-
non-member license commitment w3c/process#196, by @frivoal.
-
-
13 pull requests received 44 new comments.
-
Allow representation of multiple members w3c/process#54 (11 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nrooney)
-
Changes from Process CG call w3c/process#200 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @vfournier17)
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
2 issues opened.
-
CSI Document w3c/process#201, by @nrooney.
-
Acronyms & Terms Section w3c/process#198, by @nrooney.
-
-
1 issue closed.
-
Duplication of text w3c/process#86.
-
-
13 issues received 71 new comments.
-
The term "Affiliation" is used in several places but not strictly defined w3c/process#176 (29 comments by @chaals, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion, @nrooney)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (7 comments by @cwilso, @dwsinger, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172 (6 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Maturity Levels w3c/process#155 (6 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt, @nrooney, @vfournier17)
-
AB and TAG nominations should be announced as they occur and not wait until close of noms w3c/process#193 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt, @nrooney)
-
Policy on use of W3C's github repo w3c/process#194 (3 comments by @nigelmegitt, @nrooney, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
provide clearer/common wording for transitions to Obsolete/Superseded status w3c/process#141 (1 comment by @nrooney)
-
-
6 pull requests opened.
-
Increase the size of the AB. w3c/process#202, by @cwilso.
-
Changes from Process CG call w3c/process#200, by @wseltzer.
-
Editorial improvements to obsolete/superceded w3c/process#199, by @nrooney.
-
Adds abbr around NOTE in 6.1.2 w3c/process#197, by @nrooney.
-
non-member license commitment w3c/process#196, by @wseltzer.
-
define "transition request" w3c/process#195, by @nrooney.
-
-
1 pull request merged.
-
Editorial improvements to obsolete/superceded w3c/process#199.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
Adds abbr around NOTE in 6.1.2 w3c/process#197.
-
-
1 pull request reopened.
-
non-member license commitment w3c/process#196, by @wseltzer.
-
-
7 pull requests received 23 new comments.
-
non-member license commitment w3c/process#196 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nrooney, @wseltzer)
-
Editorial improvements to obsolete/superceded w3c/process#199 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nrooney)
-
Participants
-
1 participant joined.
-
Florian Rivoal joined.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
12 issues received 88 new comments.
-
The term "Affiliation" is used in several places but not strictly defined w3c/process#176 (24 comments by @chaals, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
AB and TAG nominations should be announced as they occur and not wait until close of noms w3c/process#193 (16 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt, @nrooney, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172 (9 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt)
-
We need a process for handling registries, APIs and other 'enumerations' w3c/process#168 (6 comments by @alvestrand, @chrisn, @dwsinger, @kcoyle, @lvdbrink)
-
address/recognize funding barriers to elected bodies? w3c/process#189 (6 comments by @chaals, @jeffjaffe, @nrooney)
-
Increase membership of the AB, possibly TAG w3c/process#190 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
Hard Requirements for Security, Privacy, Internationalisation and Accessibility Considerations w3c/process#117 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
Define charter review process to require addressing comments as in CR transitions w3c/process#182 (1 comment by @wseltzer)
-
Participants
-
1 organization joined.
-
Wiley joined.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
2 issues opened.
-
Policy on use of W3C's github repo w3c/process#194, by @kcoyle.
-
-
10 issues received 47 new comments.
-
The term "Affiliation" is used in several places but not strictly defined w3c/process#176 (12 comments by @chaals, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe)
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172 (11 comments by @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt)
-
Increase membership of the AB, possibly TAG w3c/process#190 (7 comments by @bkardell, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @michaelchampion)
-
Should the process include something about Testing? w3c/process#157 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @gsnedders, @nigelmegitt)
-
AB and TAG nominations should be announced as they occur and not wait until close of noms w3c/process#193 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
address/recognize funding barriers to elected bodies? w3c/process#189 (2 comments by @bkardell, @gsnedders)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (1 comment by @chaals)
-
Document how to move work from a Community Group into a WG Rec Track document w3c/process#180 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
4 pull requests merged.
-
remove member w3c/process#185.
-
notifications should be recorded w3c/process#184.
-
written notification of resignation must be recorded w3c/process#188.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
clarify withdrawing a Rec w3c/process#145.
-
-
1 pull request reopened.
-
Expand and clarify the 'personal capacity' aspect of AB/TAG participation w3c/process#191, by @kpfleming.
-
-
8 pull requests received 30 new comments.
-
Expand and clarify the 'personal capacity' aspect of AB/TAG participation w3c/process#191 (10 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @kpfleming)
-
Update #last-call to #candidate-rec links w3c/process#187 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @nrooney, @xfq)
-
written notification of resignation must be recorded w3c/process#188 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
3 issues opened.
-
Increase membership of the AB, possibly TAG w3c/process#190, by @cwilso.
-
address/recognize funding barriers to elected bodies? w3c/process#189, by @bkardell.
-
-
14 issues received 111 new comments.
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60 (52 comments by @bkardell, @chaals, @cwilso, @dbaron, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion, @swickr)
-
Define charter review process to require addressing comments as in CR transitions w3c/process#182 (15 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @TzviyaSiegman, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
Increase membership of the AB, possibly TAG w3c/process#190 (5 comments by @bkardell, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @nrooney)
-
Should we have term limits for the AB (and possibly TAG)? w3c/process#165 (5 comments by @fantasai, @frivoal, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion)
-
Document how to move work from a Community Group into a WG Rec Track document w3c/process#180 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @nrooney, @vfournier17)
-
address/recognize funding barriers to elected bodies? w3c/process#189 (3 comments by @bkardell, @dwsinger)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @wseltzer)
-
Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter w3c/process#24 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG? w3c/process#31 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
-
6 pull requests opened.
-
Expand and clarify the 'personal capacity' aspect of AB/TAG participation w3c/process#191, by @kpfleming.
-
written notification of resignation must be recorded w3c/process#188, by @chaals.
-
Update #last-call to #candidate-rec links w3c/process#187, by @nrooney.
-
Add text on vacating TAG and AB seats w3c/process#186, by @nrooney.
-
remove member w3c/process#185, by @nrooney.
-
notifications should be recorded w3c/process#184, by @nrooney.
-
-
5 pull requests received 13 new comments.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
3 issues opened.
-
Document how to move work from a Community Group into a WG Rec Track document w3c/process#180, by @dwsinger.
-
TAG, AB vacated seat text change w3c/process#179, by @nrooney.
-
5 issues closed.
-
TAG, AB vacated seat text change w3c/process#179.
-
Can't update process as if it were a Rec w3c/process#146.
-
11 issues received 48 new comments.
-
The term "Affiliation" is used in several places but not strictly defined w3c/process#176 (12 comments by @caribouW3, @chaals, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @nrooney)
-
Should the process include something about Testing? w3c/process#157 (7 comments by @dsinger, @dwsinger, @nigelmegitt)
-
TAG, AB vacated seat text change w3c/process#179 (7 comments by @chaals, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @nrooney)
-
Working Group and Interest Group charter extension w3c/process#177 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
define "independent" w3c/process#167 (5 comments by @chaals, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt, @wseltzer)
-
Member submissions w3c/process#169 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt, @vfournier17)
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172 (2 comments by @fantasai, @wseltzer)
-
Document how to move work from a Community Group into a WG Rec Track document w3c/process#180 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
The team/director should be removed from being in-loop on spec. obsoletion w3c/process#174 (2 comments by @dwsinger)
-
Should TAG appointees be automatically nominated for the next TAG election when their term expires? w3c/process#166 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Contrast 'immediately' vacated seats and seats vacated at the next election w3c/process#175 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
1 pull request opened.
-
Update note per #172 w3c/process#181, by @wseltzer.
-
-
5 pull requests merged.
-
Add diagram to 6.9 w3c/process#152.
-
Avoid some redirects and minor nitpicks, including in the changelog w3c/process#159.
-
Remove alternative update mechanism w3c/process#147.
-
Update maturity states w3c/process#144.
-
Corrects CR/PR AC review w3c/process#170.
-
-
7 pull requests received 11 new comments.
-
Avoid some redirects and minor nitpicks, including in the changelog w3c/process#159 (1 comment by @nrooney)
GitHub
w3c/process
-
7 issues opened.
-
Working Group and Interest Group charter extension w3c/process#177, by @vfournier17.
-
The term "Affiliation" is used in several places but not strictly defined w3c/process#176, by @cwilso.
-
Contrast 'immediately' vacated seats and seats vacated at the next election w3c/process#175, by @dwsinger.
-
The team/director should be removed from being in-loop on spec. obsoletion w3c/process#174, by @dwsinger.
-
Review the role of the Director in the process document w3c/process#173, by @dwsinger.
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172, by @nigelmegitt.
-
href for Candidate Rec link is broken fragment w3c/process#171, by @nigelmegitt.
-
-
1 issue closed.
-
Improve Errata management in W3C w3c/process#5.
-
-
1 issue reopened.
-
22 issues received 55 new comments.
-
Should the process include something about Testing? w3c/process#157 (6 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt)
-
define "independent" w3c/process#167 (5 comments by @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
We need a process for handling registries, APIs and other 'enumerations' w3c/process#168 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @vfournier17)
-
Process supporting "Living Standards"? w3c/process#79 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @joanmarie, @johnfoliot)
-
The team/director should be removed from being in-loop on spec. obsoletion w3c/process#174 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion)
-
Enumerate the requirements for wide review w3c/process#130 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @nigelmegitt)
-
Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year w3c/process#34 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @plehegar)
-
Contrast 'immediately' vacated seats and seats vacated at the next election w3c/process#175 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
"Implementation experience" description should clearly identify likelihood of broad acceptance w3c/process#32 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @wseltzer)
-
Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR? Align defn with process w3c/process#172 (2 comments by @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt)
-
Should TAG appointees be automatically nominated for the next TAG election when their term expires? w3c/process#166 (1 comment by @chaals)
-
The term "Affiliation" is used in several places but not strictly defined w3c/process#176 (1 comment by @chaals)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG? w3c/process#31 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
1 pull request opened.
-
Corrects CR/PR AC review w3c/process#170, by @LJWatson.
-
-
4 pull requests received 7 new comments.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
6 issues opened.
-
Member submissions w3c/process#169, by @jeffjaffe.
-
We need a process for handling registries, APIs and other 'enumerations' w3c/process#168, by @dwsinger.
-
define "independent" w3c/process#167, by @nigelmegitt.
-
Should we have term limits for the AB (and possibly TAG)? w3c/process#165, by @tantek.
-
Representativity on the TAG w3c/process#163, by @ylafon.
-
-
7 issues closed.
-
Differentiate recharterings w3c/process#142.
-
Super-majority for Appeal w3c/process#131.
-
Audit of Members / Quorum? w3c/process#107.
-
double full stop w3c/process#156.
-
should have a CONTRIBUTING.md w3c/process#161.
-
-
25 issues received 71 new comments.
-
Enumerate the requirements for wide review w3c/process#130 (11 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt)
-
Should we have term limits for the AB (and possibly TAG)? w3c/process#165 (9 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @tantek)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (7 comments by @delfiramirez, @dwsinger, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
Should TAG appointees be automatically nominated for the next TAG election when their term expires? w3c/process#166 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @tantek, @vfournier17)
-
Process 2019: TAG Election / Appointment Process , Role of the Director w3c/process#118 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @nrooney, @ylafon)
-
Should the Process define Business and Community Groups? w3c/process#17 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @vfournier17)
-
Should the process include something about Testing? w3c/process#157 (2 comments by @astearns, @jeffjaffe)
-
We need a process for handling registries, APIs and other 'enumerations' w3c/process#168 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
Hard Requirements for Security, Privacy, Internationalisation and Accessibility Considerations w3c/process#117 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @nrooney)
-
provide clearer/common wording for transitions to Obsolete/Superseded status w3c/process#141 (1 comment by @jeffjaffe)
-
What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG? w3c/process#2 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
2 pull requests opened.
-
Link to the latest operative version in CONTRIBUTING.md w3c/process#164, by @xfq.
-
Small editorial update and added CONTRIBUTING.md w3c/process#162, by @nrooney.
-
-
2 pull requests merged.
-
Link to the latest operative version in CONTRIBUTING.md w3c/process#164.
-
Small editorial update and added CONTRIBUTING.md w3c/process#162.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
Updated for accuracy w3c/process#101.
-
-
4 pull requests received 27 new comments.
-
Small editorial update and added CONTRIBUTING.md w3c/process#162 (24 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @nrooney, @xfq)
-
Avoid some redirects and minor nitpicks, including in the changelog w3c/process#159 (1 comment by @plehegar)
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
5 issues opened.
-
should have a CONTRIBUTING.md w3c/process#161, by @chaals.
-
define "transition request" w3c/process#160, by @samuelweiler.
-
Should the process include something about Testing? w3c/process#157, by @nrooney.
-
double full stop w3c/process#156, by @nrooney.
-
Maturity Levels w3c/process#155, by @nrooney.
-
-
5 issues closed.
-
When are tests required? w3c/process#129.
-
Rationale for relying on GitHub w3c/process#132.
-
Editing, deleting, or replacing a member submission w3c/process#154.
-
Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review w3c/process#7.
-
-
1 issue reopened.
-
Can't update process as if it were a Rec w3c/process#146, by @nrooney.
-
-
21 issues received 39 new comments.
-
Should the process include something about Testing? w3c/process#157 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @nrooney)
-
Process supporting "Living Standards"? w3c/process#79 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
Can't update process as if it were a Rec w3c/process#146 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @nrooney, @vfournier17)
-
Hard Requirements for Security, Privacy, Internationalisation and Accessibility Considerations w3c/process#117 (2 comments by @chaals, @vfournier17)
-
Editing, deleting, or replacing a member submission w3c/process#154 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @nrooney)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
"Implementation experience" description should clearly identify likelihood of broad acceptance w3c/process#32 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG? w3c/process#31 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Substantive changes undefined for Charter, Process reviews, and things other than specifications w3c/process#28 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
What are the rights and obligations of non-member participants in the creation of a member submission? w3c/process#19 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
2 pull requests opened.
-
Avoid some redirects and minor nitpicks, including in the changelog w3c/process#159, by @plehegar.
-
Only substantive changes do require Director's approval for CR w3c/process#158, by @plehegar.
-
-
2 pull requests merged.
-
make dfn elements linkable w3c/process#153.
-
Only substantive changes do require Director's approval for CR w3c/process#158.
-
-
3 pull requests received 17 new comments.
-
Avoid some redirects and minor nitpicks, including in the changelog w3c/process#159 (10 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @plehegar, @swickr, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
Only substantive changes do require Director's approval for CR w3c/process#158 (6 comments by @dwsinger, @plehegar, @swickr)
-