W3C Process Community Group - Activity in 2020
No matches.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
13 issues opened.
-
TAG nomination and election period are at poor times of the year w3c/process#487, by @dwsinger.
-
Stop staggering AB/TAG election cycles w3c/process#486, by @chaals.
-
Proposed additions? w3c/process#483, by @plehegar.
-
Whistle blower w3c/process#481, by @jwrosewell.
-
Reconsider incubation w3c/process#479, by @jwrosewell.
-
Appeal process for proposals w3c/process#478, by @jwrosewell.
-
Bias of W3C team members w3c/process#471, by @jwrosewell.
-
Independence of chairs w3c/process#470, by @jwrosewell.
-
Anonymous input for offline debate w3c/process#469, by @jwrosewell.
-
External facilitation w3c/process#467, by @jwrosewell.
-
Registries Survey w3c/process#466, by @fantasai.
-
Increase size of the TAG? w3c/process#465, by @cwilso.
-
Clarify deadline for nominations w3c/process#464, by @fantasai.
-
-
3 issues closed.
-
Proposed additions? w3c/process#483.
-
Consolidate discipline-related elements w3c/process#418.
-
-
20 issues received 63 new comments.
-
Anonymous input for offline debate w3c/process#469 (13 comments by @chaals, @fantasai, @frivoal, @jwrosewell, @michaelchampion, @TzviyaSiegman, @wseltzer)
-
Increase size of the TAG? w3c/process#465 (8 comments by @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @michaelchampion, @mnot)
-
Elevating a TAG document to W3C Approved Status w3c/process#461 (6 comments by @chaals, @css-meeting-bot, @fantasai, @frivoal, @jwrosewell, @samuelweiler)
-
Suspension / Removal for cause w3c/process#312 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @samuelweiler, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
TAG nomination and election period are at poor times of the year w3c/process#487 (4 comments by @bkardell, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process w3c/process#409 (1 comment by @jwrosewell)
-
Do we need a lighter-weight process for superseding when it's "obvious"? w3c/process#324 (1 comment by @css-meeting-bot)
-
-
1 pull request opened.
-
possible missing link in 'Relation of Process Document to Patent Policy' section w3c/process#485, by @himorin.
-
-
1 pull request merged.
-
Consolidate discipline-related text w3c/process#432.
-
-
3 pull requests received 7 new comments.
-
possible missing link in 'Relation of Process Document to Patent Policy' section w3c/process#485 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @himorin)
-
Participants
-
1 participant joined.
-
Ted Thibodeau Jr (OpenLink Software Inc.) joined.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
2 issues opened.
-
Elevating a TAG document to W3C Approved Status w3c/process#461, by @jeffjaffe.
-
3 issues received 17 new comments.
-
Elevating a TAG document to W3C Approved Status w3c/process#461 (8 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
Do we need a procedural track for "disclosure" documents? w3c/process#460 (7 comments by @caribouW3, @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe)
-
Participants
-
1 participant joined.
-
Wendy Seltzer (W3C) joined.
-
-
1 participant left.
-
Michael Champion left.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
2 issues opened.
-
Do we need a procedural track for "disclosure" documents? w3c/process#460, by @dwsinger.
-
Who handles discipline when it isn't the Director? w3c/process#458, by @chaals.
-
-
8 issues received 31 new comments.
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60 (12 comments by @bkardell, @css-meeting-bot, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @tantek)
-
Chair appointment community involvement, transparency, enabling objections and handling them w3c/process#281 (7 comments by @chaals, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @michaelchampion)
-
Do we need a lighter-weight process for superseding when it's "obvious"? w3c/process#324 (6 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
Do we need a procedural track for "disclosure" documents? w3c/process#460 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @travisleithead)
-
-
1 pull request received 7 new comments.
-
Consolidate discipline-related text w3c/process#432 (7 comments by @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @wseltzer)
-
Participants
-
1 participant left.
-
David Baron (Mozilla Foundation) left.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
6 issues opened.
-
Proposal for a Directorate w3c/process#457, by @michaelchampion.
-
Identify and (explain or change) W3C jargon words w3c/process#456, by @nigelmegitt.
-
Maturity Level is a weird term w3c/process#455, by @fantasai.
-
qualify _unfinished_ technical reports in 6.2.12.1 w3c/process#453, by @nigelmegitt.
-
CRD may be followed by a Proposed Recommendation w3c/process#450, by @plehegar.
-
-
6 issues closed.
-
Alternatives to "W3C Council" for adjudicating formal objections w3c/process#391.
-
CR Draft boilerplate w3c/process#405.
-
Concerns about Amended Recommendations w3c/process#137.
-
What does the document status "discontinued" mean? w3c/process#262.
-
-
18 issues received 74 new comments.
-
Proposal for a Directorate w3c/process#457 (13 comments by @cwilso, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @michaelchampion, @mnot)
-
Rename Candidate Change / Proposed Change to Candidate Amendment / Proposed Amendment w3c/process#449 (11 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt)
-
Should the Process normatively reference RFC 8890 "The Internet is for End Users" ? w3c/process#448 (7 comments by @cwilso, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Chair appointment community involvement, transparency, enabling objections and handling them w3c/process#281 (6 comments by @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @samuelweiler)
-
Do we need a lighter-weight process for superseding when it's "obvious"? w3c/process#324 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe)
-
What does the document status "discontinued" mean? w3c/process#262 (6 comments by @dwsinger, @nigelmegitt, @plehegar)
-
qualify _unfinished_ technical reports in 6.2.12.1 w3c/process#453 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt)
-
CRD may be followed by a Proposed Recommendation w3c/process#450 (5 comments by @fantasai, @frivoal, @plehegar)
-
[meta] Eliminate role of The Director and redistribute authority from The Team to W3C members & community w3c/process#393 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Identify and (explain or change) W3C jargon words w3c/process#456 (2 comments by @frivoal, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Alternatives to "W3C Council" for adjudicating formal objections w3c/process#391 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
-
3 pull requests merged.
-
Amend w3c/process#451.
-
Define "CEO" and "Team Decision" w3c/process#438.
-
Retire Amended RECs w3c/process#428.
-
-
5 pull requests received 19 new comments.
-
Meetings of new groups are 8 weeks from charter approval w3c/process#434 (2 comments by @jwrosewell, @michaelchampion)
Participants
-
1 participant joined.
-
James Rosewell (51Degrees) joined.
-
-
1 organization joined.
-
51Degrees joined.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
10 issues opened.
-
Horizontal/Wide review for IG/CG/BGs? w3c/process#447, by @xfq.
-
Remove the Recommendation stage, and rename CR to Recommendation w3c/process#446, by @plehegar.
-
Stronger emphasis on reaching Recommendation w3c/process#443, by @plehegar.
-
Need for Policy for Submission Requests w3c/process#442, by @plehegar.
-
Relations with IETF w3c/process#441, by @plehegar.
-
Candidate Recommendation Snapshots, Review Snapshots w3c/process#439, by @plehegar.
-
6.2.12.4. missing "Restoring" in the title section w3c/process#437, by @plehegar.
-
Tooling Requirements w3c/process#435, by @fantasai.
-
4 issues closed.
-
Candidate Recommendation Snapshots, Review Snapshots w3c/process#439.
-
6.2.12.4. missing "Restoring" in the title section w3c/process#437.
-
Undefined: rationale for "short term(s)" for AB/TAG elections w3c/process#333.
-
-
19 issues received 88 new comments.
-
Tooling Requirements w3c/process#435 (16 comments by @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @samuelweiler, @wseltzer, @xfq)
-
Stronger emphasis on reaching Recommendation w3c/process#443 (11 comments by @chaals, @frivoal, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt)
-
Recording of meetings w3c/process#334 (8 comments by @alvestrand, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @nigelmegitt, @samuelweiler, @wseltzer)
-
Remove the Recommendation stage, and rename CR to Recommendation w3c/process#446 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt, @zcorpan)
-
What does the document status "discontinued" mean? w3c/process#262 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @plehegar)
-
Substantive changes undefined for Charter, Process reviews, and things other than specifications w3c/process#28 (5 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Relations with IETF w3c/process#441 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion, @samuelweiler)
-
Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process w3c/process#409 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @mnot, @wseltzer)
-
Eliminate 'hanging paragraphs' w3c/process#424 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @palemieux)
-
Should the Process normatively reference RFC 8890 "The Internet is for End Users" ? w3c/process#448 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Horizontal/Wide review for IG/CG/BGs? w3c/process#447 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @samuelweiler)
-
Proposed Recommendation must not have any substantive changes from the previous Snapshot w3c/process#440 (2 comments by @travisleithead)
-
Candidate Recommendation Snapshots, Review Snapshots w3c/process#439 (2 comments by @travisleithead)
-
What are the rules for where/how W3C publications are developed? w3c/process#322 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
W3C Council should be limited to one vote per member organization w3c/process#327 (1 comment by @cwilso)
-
-
4 pull requests opened.
-
Editorial tweak in Superseded Recommendation note w3c/process#445, by @tantek.
-
Editorial tweak in Superseded Recommendation note w3c/process#444, by @tantek.
-
Define "CEO" and "Team Decision" w3c/process#438, by @frivoal.
-
New section on tooling w3c/process#436, by @frivoal.
-
-
6 pull requests merged.
-
Editorial tweak in Superseded Recommendation note w3c/process#444.
-
Reduce redundant text about how to substantively revise a REC w3c/process#427.
-
[director-free] Gratuitous mentions of the Director w3c/process#254.
-
User consistent terminology (short vs incomplete terms) w3c/process#431.
-
Fix terminology mixup w3c/process#430.
-
Editorial pass w3c/process#376.
-
-
2 pull requests closed.
-
Editorial tweak in Superseded Recommendation note w3c/process#445.
-
Remove reference to stale document w3c/process#274.
-
-
12 pull requests received 54 new comments.
-
Meetings of new groups are 8 weeks from charter approval w3c/process#434 (14 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @jwrosewell, @michaelchampion, @samuelweiler, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Define "CEO" and "Team Decision" w3c/process#438 (13 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @jwrosewell, @wseltzer)
-
Consolidate discipline-related text w3c/process#432 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @koalie, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
[director-free] Gratuitous mentions of the Director w3c/process#254 (2 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @wseltzer)
-
Reduce redundant text about how to substantively revise a REC w3c/process#427 (1 comment by @css-meeting-bot)
-
User consistent terminology (short vs incomplete terms) w3c/process#431 (1 comment by @samuelweiler)
-
Participants
-
1 participant left.
-
Ojan Vafai (Google LLC) left.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
8 issues opened.
-
Clarify Process for Publishing Statements from the W3C w3c/process#429, by @wareid.
-
Have the normal, default, decision policy for charters in the process w3c/process#425, by @dwsinger.
-
Eliminate 'hanging paragraphs' w3c/process#424, by @dwsinger.
-
Section 1 (Introduction) should help navigate the document w3c/process#423, by @dwsinger.
-
What's the point of what the Process has to say about Liasons? w3c/process#422, by @frivoal.
-
Simplify member submissions w3c/process#421, by @frivoal.
-
Remove section of the Process on Workshop and Symposia w3c/process#419, by @frivoal.
-
-
2 issues closed.
-
Re-envisioning the CRUD/Snapshot split w3c/process#346.
-
1 issue reopened.
-
Setup document management for director-free matters w3c/process#366, by @dwsinger.
-
-
23 issues received 142 new comments.
-
Recording of meetings w3c/process#334 (36 comments by @ablanchard1138, @caribouW3, @cwilso, @dauwhe, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @hober, @jensimmons, @koalie, @mallory, @mnot, @nigelmegitt, @samuelweiler, @thezedwards, @wilaw, @wseltzer)
-
Enumerate the requirements for wide review w3c/process#130 (33 comments by @aphillips, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt, @plehegar, @r12a, @samuelweiler)
-
Streamlining the Process Document w3c/process#356 (15 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Concerns about Amended Recommendations w3c/process#137 (6 comments by @fantasai, @frivoal, @plehegar)
-
Consolidate discipline-related elements w3c/process#418 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @koalie)
-
Remove section of the Process on Workshop and Symposia w3c/process#419 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt)
-
What's the point of what the Process has to say about Liasons? w3c/process#422 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt)
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Have the normal, default, decision policy for charters in the process w3c/process#425 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @fantasai, @plehegar)
-
Clarify Process for Publishing Statements from the W3C w3c/process#429 (2 comments by @fantasai, @jeffjaffe)
-
7.1.1 Charter reviews on a public communication channel? w3c/process#38 (2 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger)
-
Setup document management for director-free matters w3c/process#366 (2 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger)
-
provide clearer/common wording for transitions to Obsolete/Superseded status w3c/process#141 (2 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger)
-
Should there be good standing / supermajority criteria in authoritative ballots? w3c/process#76 (2 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @jeffjaffe)
-
Substantive changes undefined for Charter, Process reviews, and things other than specifications w3c/process#28 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
Revising a Recommendation: Substantive Changes or New Features. w3c/process#358 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
-
8 pull requests opened.
-
Meetings of new groups are 8 weeks from charter approval w3c/process#434, by @frivoal.
-
Simplify the text on liaisons w3c/process#433, by @frivoal.
-
Consolidate discipline-related text w3c/process#432, by @frivoal.
-
User consistent terminology (short vs incomplete terms) w3c/process#431, by @frivoal.
-
Fix terminology mixup w3c/process#430, by @frivoal.
-
Retire Amended RECs w3c/process#428, by @frivoal.
-
Reduce redundant text about how to substantively revise a REC w3c/process#427, by @frivoal.
-
Remove mentions of when various groups were created w3c/process#420, by @frivoal.
-
-
1 pull request merged.
-
Remove mentions of when various groups were created w3c/process#420.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
singular w3c/process#386.
-
-
9 pull requests received 42 new comments.
-
Proposes changes to wide/horizontal review w3c/process#401 (17 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @LJWatson, @nigelmegitt, @pes10k, @samuelweiler, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Remove reference to stale document w3c/process#274 (4 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger, @koalie)
-
Remove mentions of when various groups were created w3c/process#420 (4 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
[director-free] Gratuitous mentions of the Director w3c/process#254 (2 comments by @frivoal, @wseltzer)
-
Participants
-
1 organization joined.
-
OpenLink Software Inc. joined.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
7 issues opened.
-
Consolidate discipline-related elements w3c/process#418, by @koalie.
-
Enable pr-preview w3c/process#417, by @nigelmegitt.
-
Remove the term "blacklisted" from W3C communications w3c/process#415, by @guest271314.
-
Tighten the Scope for definition of Working Groups w3c/process#414, by @travisleithead.
-
Trim Changes section w3c/process#412, by @fantasai.
-
Increasing voter turnout in AC reviews with incentives w3c/process#410, by @anssiko.
-
Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process w3c/process#409, by @cwilso.
-
-
6 issues closed.
-
Name for Proposed Changes under patent review w3c/process#408.
-
Trim Changes section w3c/process#412.
-
Remove the term "blacklisted" from W3C communications w3c/process#415.
-
Section 6.2 does not acknowledge Perpetual CRs w3c/process#406.
-
Patent Policy application to Proposed Changes w3c/process#403.
-
-
2 issues reopened.
-
Does the process assume all WDs are on the Rec. Track? w3c/process#236, by @frivoal.
-
Remove the term "blacklisted" from W3C communications w3c/process#415, by @chaals.
-
-
22 issues received 124 new comments.
-
Section 6.2 does not acknowledge Perpetual CRs w3c/process#406 (24 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt, @palemieux)
-
"Candidate Recommendation" is no longer an accurate term w3c/process#402 (16 comments by @dwsinger, @fantasai, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt)
-
Tighten the Scope for definition of Working Groups w3c/process#414 (12 comments by @brewerj, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @michaelchampion, @shawna-slh, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60 (10 comments by @cwilso, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion)
-
Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process w3c/process#409 (9 comments by @dwsinger, @fantasai, @ianbjacobs, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt, @palemieux, @plehegar, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Increasing voter turnout in AC reviews with incentives w3c/process#410 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @nigelmegitt, @palemieux, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
Remove the term "blacklisted" from W3C communications w3c/process#415 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @LJWatson)
-
Name for Proposed Changes under patent review w3c/process#408 (6 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal)
-
Does the process assume all WDs are on the Rec. Track? w3c/process#236 (5 comments by @frivoal, @nigelmegitt)
-
Link to document on formal objection processing w3c/process#337 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
-
2 pull requests opened.
-
Trim the Changes section to just the changes this year w3c/process#416, by @frivoal.
-
-
2 pull requests merged.
-
Trim the Changes section to just the changes this year w3c/process#416.
-
1 pull request closed.
-
Proposed addition of public channel for AC review w3c/process#39.
-
-
4 pull requests received 27 new comments.
-
Proposes changes to wide/horizontal review w3c/process#401 (21 comments by @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @nigelmegitt, @wseltzer)
-
Proposed addition of public channel for AC review w3c/process#39 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @wseltzer)
-
Rename proposed changes to candidate changes, and use proposed changes for those under AC Review w3c/process#413 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Participants
-
1 participant joined.
-
Chaals Nevile (Consensys) joined.
-
-
1 participant left.
-
Robert Sanderson (J. Paul Getty Trust) left.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
7 issues opened.
-
Name for Proposed Changes under patent review w3c/process#408, by @fantasai.
-
Section 6.2 does not acknowledge Perpetual CRs w3c/process#406, by @palemieux.
-
CR Draft boilerplate w3c/process#405, by @plehegar.
-
Clarify W3C Decision w3c/process#404, by @jeffjaffe.
-
Patent Policy application to Proposed Changes w3c/process#403, by @fantasai.
-
"Candidate Recommendation" is no longer an accurate term w3c/process#402, by @palemieux.
-
-
2 issues closed.
-
Clarify W3C Decision w3c/process#404.
-
13 issues received 90 new comments.
-
"Candidate Recommendation" is no longer an accurate term w3c/process#402 (21 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt, @palemieux)
-
Section 6.2 does not acknowledge Perpetual CRs w3c/process#406 (19 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt, @palemieux)
-
Clarify W3C Decision w3c/process#404 (19 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt, @plehegar)
-
Enumerate the requirements for wide review w3c/process#130 (11 comments by @aphillips, @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @LJWatson, @nigelmegitt)
-
The Elephant in the Director-free Room w3c/process#316 (6 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion, @mnot)
-
Patent Policy application to Proposed Changes w3c/process#403 (4 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger, @fantasai, @frivoal)
-
Limit scope of delegation on Process, Patent Policy, and CEPC evolution w3c/process#388 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @wseltzer)
-
-
1 pull request opened.
-
Proposes changes to wide/horizontal review w3c/process#401, by @LJWatson.
-
-
1 pull request received 44 new comments.
-
Proposes changes to wide/horizontal review w3c/process#401 (44 comments by @cwilso, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @LJWatson, @nigelmegitt)
-
Participants
-
1 organization joined.
-
Data Society Alliance joined.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
2 issues received 14 new comments.
-
Limit scope of delegation on Process, Patent Policy, and CEPC evolution w3c/process#388 (12 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @TzviyaSiegman)
-
-
2 pull requests opened.
-
Update index.bs w3c/process#397, by @iherman.
-
Link to the new Patent Policy w3c/process#395, by @frivoal.
-
-
2 pull requests merged.
-
Update index.bs w3c/process#397.
-
Link to the new Patent Policy w3c/process#395.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
Propose removing CR reference to Last Call w3c/process#363.
-
-
3 pull requests received 4 new comments.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
1 issue opened.
-
Formalise HRG as mandatory by default w3c/process#394, by @frivoal.
-
-
2 issues closed.
-
Diagrams in Process2020 are not up to date w3c/process#390.
-
Process supporting "Living Standards"? w3c/process#79.
-
-
18 issues received 27 new comments.
-
Alternatives to "W3C Council" for adjudicating formal objections w3c/process#391 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Process details that should NOT be owned by W3M/Team/CEO w3c/process#392 (2 comments by @ericsiow, @frivoal)
-
Limit scope of delegation on Process, Patent Policy, and CEPC evolution w3c/process#388 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Undefined: rationale for "short term(s)" for AB/TAG elections w3c/process#333 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
Substantive changes undefined for Charter, Process reviews, and things other than specifications w3c/process#28 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
We need a process for handling registries, APIs and other 'enumerations' w3c/process#168 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
Define charter review process to require addressing comments as in CR transitions w3c/process#182 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
[meta] Eliminate role of The Director and redistribute authority from The Team to W3C members & community w3c/process#393 (1 comment by @michaelchampion)
-
17 pull requests merged.
-
spelling fix: judgment w3c/process#357.
-
Moar re-ordering w3c/process#382.
-
order of actions w3c/process#381.
-
punctuation w3c/process#380.
-
number (editorial) w3c/process#379.
-
Fixed letter case w3c/process#378.
-
typo w3c/process#377.
-
typo w3c/process#375.
-
link to ML archive rather than ML mailto w3c/process#374.
-
Update link that redirected w3c/process#372.
-
removed spurious period mid-sentence w3c/process#370.
-
hyphen w3c/process#369.
-
The guidebook is no longer member-only w3c/process#371.
-
Use actual title of the linked document w3c/process#383.
-
description for "The Art of Consensus" w3c/process#384.
-
consistent usage of "Team's Publication Rules" w3c/process#385.
-
Typo correction; plural 'seats' in 2.5.3 w3c/process#387.
-
-
3 pull requests received 5 new comments.
Participants
-
3 participants joined.
-
Travis Leithead (Microsoft Corporation) joined.
-
Pierre-Anthony Lemieux (MovieLabs) joined.
-
Michael Champion joined.
-
-
1 participant left.
-
Michael Champion left.
-
-
1 organization joined.
-
MovieLabs joined.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
8 issues opened.
-
Process details that should NOT be owned by W3M/Team/CEO w3c/process#392, by @michaelchampion.
-
Alternatives to "W3C Council" for adjudicating formal objections w3c/process#391, by @michaelchampion.
-
Diagrams in Process2020 are not up to date w3c/process#390, by @dwsinger.
-
Should the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action be member-confidential w3c/process#389, by @michaelchampion.
-
Limit scope of delegation on Process, Patent Policy, and CEPC evolution w3c/process#388, by @swickr.
-
ambiguous statement for proxy in WG/IG w3c/process#373, by @koalie.
-
TAG appointed participants announcement by Director w3c/process#368, by @koalie.
-
3 issues closed.
-
Should the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action be member-confidential w3c/process#389.
-
"Evolution of the Governing Documents" incorrect w3c/process#355.
-
Steps to advancing to Recommendation w3c/process#352.
-
-
22 issues received 55 new comments.
-
Enumerate the requirements for wide review w3c/process#130 (11 comments by @aphillips, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion, @nigelmegitt, @r12a)
-
First meeting of a WG allowed too soon w3c/process#251 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @fantasai)
-
Process details that should NOT be owned by W3M/Team/CEO w3c/process#392 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
Steps to advancing to Recommendation w3c/process#352 (3 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
Re-envisioning the CRUD/Snapshot split w3c/process#346 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @michaelchampion)
-
Alternatives to "W3C Council" for adjudicating formal objections w3c/process#391 (2 comments by @michaelchampion, @mnot)
-
Please reconsider director-free formal objection handling w3c/process#331 (2 comments by @cwilso, @dwsinger)
-
Do we need a lighter-weight process for superseding when it's "obvious"? w3c/process#324 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
TAG appointed participants announcement by Director w3c/process#368 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
How does W3C Council handle membership turnover? w3c/process#290 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
What are the rules for where/how W3C publications are developed? w3c/process#322 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Should the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action be member-confidential w3c/process#389 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
Undefined: rationale for "short term(s)" for AB/TAG elections w3c/process#333 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
W3C Council should be limited to one vote per member organization w3c/process#327 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Revising a Recommendation: Substantive Changes or New Features. w3c/process#358 (1 comment by @css-meeting-bot)
-
What aspects of Registries should/may/should-not be published together? w3c/process#354 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
18 pull requests opened.
-
Typo correction; plural 'seats' in 2.5.3 w3c/process#387, by @swickr.
-
consistent usage of "Team's Publication Rules" w3c/process#385, by @koalie.
-
description for "The Art of Consensus" w3c/process#384, by @koalie.
-
Use actual title of the linked document w3c/process#383, by @koalie.
-
Moar re-ordering w3c/process#382, by @koalie.
-
order of actions w3c/process#381, by @koalie.
-
punctuation w3c/process#380, by @koalie.
-
number (editorial) w3c/process#379, by @koalie.
-
Fixed letter case w3c/process#378, by @koalie.
-
Editorial pass w3c/process#376, by @koalie.
-
link to ML archive rather than ML mailto w3c/process#374, by @koalie.
-
Update link that redirected w3c/process#372, by @koalie.
-
The guidebook is no longer member-only w3c/process#371, by @koalie.
-
removed spurious period mid-sentence w3c/process#370, by @koalie.
-
-
1 pull request merged.
-
Rephrase the "Evolution of the Process" section w3c/process#367.
-
-
5 pull requests received 8 new comments.
Participants
-
1 participant left.
-
Ojan Vafai (Google LLC) left.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
3 issues opened.
-
Setup document management for director-free matters w3c/process#366, by @LJWatson.
-
"Edited Recommendations" do not serve a useful purpose in an everblue/teal world w3c/process#362, by @frivoal.
-
Director-less issues w3c/process#360, by @danield06.
-
-
15 issues closed.
-
Refactor section about Errata w3c/process#340.
-
What is the difference between a PD and a WD? w3c/process#272.
-
FYI - for your research on Evergreen Standards proposal w3c/process#263.
-
Should W3C adopt the separate Evergreen Track? w3c/process#343.
-
[evergreen] Depending on not existant tooling is problematic w3c/process#301.
-
[evergreen] two types of wide review? w3c/process#302.
-
Should whether new features are allowed into RECs be distinguished? w3c/process#345.
-
Retitle STATUS Sections to Avoid Double Definitions w3c/process#336.
-
Should W3C adopt the EverTeal modifications to the REC track? w3c/process#344.
-
-
23 issues received 47 new comments.
-
"Evolution of the Governing Documents" incorrect w3c/process#355 (8 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe)
-
Revising a Recommendation: Substantive Changes or New Features. w3c/process#358 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe)
-
Re-envisioning the CRUD/Snapshot split w3c/process#346 (4 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @dwsinger, @wseltzer)
-
We need a process for handling registries, APIs and other 'enumerations' w3c/process#168 (4 comments by @edent, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe)
-
What aspects of Registries should/may/should-not be published together? w3c/process#354 (2 comments by @frivoal, @swickr)
-
Should whether new features are allowed into RECs be distinguished? w3c/process#345 (2 comments by @css-meeting-bot, @frivoal)
-
Can the Evergreen state be permanent or should ERs eventually become Recs? w3c/process#273 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
Does the decision to allow the Evergreen state need to be made in the Charter? w3c/process#271 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
EVERGREEN: Evergreen should be a maturity state, not a separate track w3c/process#267 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
[Evergreen] Retiring an evergreen REC by rescinding vs via republishing as Note w3c/process#297 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
[evergreen] Depending on not existant tooling is problematic w3c/process#301 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
[evergreen] Need to be able to Rescind not-yet-REC REC-track documents w3c/process#303 (1 comment by @frivoal)
-
"Edited Recommendations" do not serve a useful purpose in an everblue/teal world w3c/process#362 (1 comment by @css-meeting-bot)
-
Should W3C adopt the EverTeal modifications to the REC track? w3c/process#344 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
5 pull requests opened.
-
Rephrase the "Evolution of the Process" section w3c/process#367, by @frivoal.
-
Eliminate the distinction between X-RECs and REC w3c/process#365, by @frivoal.
-
Drop the "Edited" Recommendation moniker w3c/process#364, by @frivoal.
-
Propose removing CR reference to Last Call w3c/process#363, by @frivoal.
-
Propose removing CR reference to Last Call w3c/process#361, by @wseltzer.
-
-
3 pull requests merged.
-
Eliminate the distinction between X-RECs and REC w3c/process#365.
-
Drop the "Edited" Recommendation moniker w3c/process#364.
-
-
2 pull requests closed.
-
Section 6 clean up w3c/process#348.
-
Propose removing CR reference to Last Call w3c/process#361.
-
-
8 pull requests received 14 new comments.
-
Eliminate the distinction between X-RECs and REC w3c/process#365 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal)
-
Propose removing CR reference to Last Call w3c/process#361 (3 comments by @chaals, @fantasai, @frivoal)
-
Avoid using the word contributor to limit conflicts with the Patent Policy w3c/process#359 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-