Advisory Board - Activity in 2017
No matches.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
7 issues opened.
-
Editing, deleting, or replacing a member submission w3c/process#154, by @dauwhe.
-
Can't update process as if it were a Rec w3c/process#146, by @chaals.
-
Differentiate recharterings w3c/process#142, by @caribouW3.
-
provide clearer/common wording for transitions to Obsolete/Superseded status w3c/process#141, by @tantek.
-
Community Groups w3c/process#139, by @jeffjaffe.
-
Editorial improvements to obsolete/superceded w3c/process#138, by @dwsinger.
-
Concerns about Amended Recommendations w3c/process#137, by @dwsinger.
-
-
5 issues closed.
-
Duplicated links w3c/process#82.
-
SVG a11y is broken w3c/process#135.
-
Diagrams call Editorial changes "minor changes" w3c/process#29.
-
Community Groups w3c/process#139.
-
Definition of Director w3c/process#128.
-
-
20 issues received 63 new comments.
-
Super-majority for Appeal w3c/process#131 (13 comments by @chaals, @ChristopherA, @dwsinger, @frivoal, @michaelchampion, @nrooney)
-
"Implementation experience" description should clearly identify likelihood of broad acceptance w3c/process#32 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @tantek, @wseltzer)
-
Editorial improvements to obsolete/superceded w3c/process#138 (6 comments by @andreastai, @chaals, @dwsinger, @tantek)
-
What should be the effect of voting for No Other Candidate w3c/process#47 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Process 2019: TAG Election / Appointment Process , Role of the Director w3c/process#118 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @nrooney)
-
Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG? w3c/process#31 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @nrooney)
-
Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review w3c/process#7 (2 comments by @caribouW3, @dwsinger)
-
What are the rights and obligations of non-member participants in the creation of a member submission? w3c/process#19 (2 comments by @dwsinger)
-
Should there be good standing / supermajority criteria in authoritative ballots? w3c/process#76 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter w3c/process#24 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
11 pull requests opened.
-
make dfn elements linkable w3c/process#153, by @chaals.
-
Add diagram to 6.9 w3c/process#152, by @chaals.
-
Improves SVG diagram a11y w3c/process#151, by @LJWatson.
-
Clarification w3c/process#150, by @chaals.
-
de-duplicate links w3c/process#149, by @chaals.
-
Thank yous w3c/process#148, by @chaals.
-
Remove alternative update mechanism w3c/process#147, by @chaals.
-
clarify withdrawing a Rec w3c/process#145, by @chaals.
-
Update maturity states w3c/process#144, by @chaals.
-
Ljw svg flowcharts w3c/process#143, by @LJWatson.
-
Remove gender-specific term w3c/process#140, by @chaals.
-
-
7 pull requests merged.
-
de-duplicate links w3c/process#149.
-
Improves SVG diagram a11y w3c/process#151.
-
careful what you ask for w3c/process#119.
-
Thank yous w3c/process#148.
-
Clarification w3c/process#150.
-
Ljw svg flowcharts w3c/process#143.
-
Remove gender-specific term w3c/process#140.
-
-
1 pull request closed.
-
Updates SVG flowchart: w3c/process#136.
-
-
5 pull requests received 8 new comments.
w3c/standards-track
-
1 issue opened.
-
volunteer as co-editor w3c/standards-track#27, by @tantek.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
7 issues opened.
-
SVG a11y is broken w3c/process#135, by @LJWatson.
-
My account w3c/process#133, by @sezeka.
-
Rationale for relying on GitHub w3c/process#132, by @retog.
-
Super-majority for Appeal w3c/process#131, by @ChristopherA.
-
Enumerate the requirements for wide review w3c/process#130, by @nigelmegitt.
-
When are tests required? w3c/process#129, by @nigelmegitt.
-
Definition of Director w3c/process#128, by @riannella.
-
-
10 issues closed.
-
My account w3c/process#133.
-
Capitalization of 'Host' in section 9 w3c/process#113.
-
6.1.2 "editorial or other minor corrections" w3c/process#111.
-
Amended Recs currently appear to BE Candidate Recs w3c/process#110.
-
Team Contact or Staff Contact? w3c/process#108.
-
Voting notice before it starts or before it ends? w3c/process#109.
-
Who at W3C can request publication of an Amended Recommendation? w3c/process#123.
-
Revert section 3.4 default in WG voting rules to Process 2017 w3c/process#121.
-
appeals outcome that sustains the decision w3c/process#112.
-
-
2 issues reopened.
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60, by @dwsinger.
-
Who at W3C can request publication of an Amended Recommendation? w3c/process#123, by @dwsinger.
-
-
17 issues received 27 new comments.
-
Super-majority for Appeal w3c/process#131 (5 comments by @ChristopherA, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Who at W3C can request publication of an Amended Recommendation? w3c/process#123 (4 comments by @dwsinger, @palemieux)
-
consider keeping 'other than to remove features explicitly identified as "at risk"'? w3c/process#97 (2 comments by @dwsinger)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (2 comments by @lynningalsbe, @vfournier17)
-
Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter w3c/process#24 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Revert section 3.4 default in WG voting rules to Process 2017 w3c/process#121 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
5 pull requests opened.
-
Updates SVG flowchart: w3c/process#136, by @LJWatson.
-
Fix several broken links w3c/process#134, by @xfq.
-
s/Github/GitHub/ w3c/process#127, by @xfq.
-
Remove extraneous close tag w3c/process#126, by @swickr.
-
Edits as a result of the 1 Nov process CG and 2 Nov AB calls w3c/process#125, by @dwsinger.
-
-
4 pull requests merged.
-
Fix several broken links w3c/process#134.
-
s/Github/GitHub/ w3c/process#127.
-
Remove extraneous close tag w3c/process#126.
-
Edits as a result of the 1 Nov process CG and 2 Nov AB calls w3c/process#125.
-
-
3 pull requests received 3 new comments.
-
Edits as a result of the 1 Nov process CG and 2 Nov AB calls w3c/process#125 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
GitHub
w3c/process
-
16 issues opened.
-
A1 w3c/process#124, by @lynningalsbe.
-
Who at W3C can request publication of an Amended Recommendation? w3c/process#123, by @palemieux.
-
Revert section 3.4 default in WG voting rules to Process 2017 w3c/process#121, by @tantek.
-
Process should say how W3T can update NOTES w3c/process#120, by @tantek.
-
Process 2019: TAG Election / Appointment Process , Role of the Director w3c/process#118, by @nrooney.
-
Transparency w3c/process#116, by @nrooney.
-
We need to consider equal-preference voting w3c/process#115, by @dwsinger.
-
"Reference Draft" and "Other Charter" w3c/process#114, by @plehegar.
-
Capitalization of 'Host' in section 9 w3c/process#113, by @dwsinger.
-
appeals outcome that sustains the decision w3c/process#112, by @dwsinger.
-
6.1.2 "editorial or other minor corrections" w3c/process#111, by @dwsinger.
-
Amended Recs currently appear to BE Candidate Recs w3c/process#110, by @dwsinger.
-
Voting notice before it starts or before it ends? w3c/process#109, by @dwsinger.
-
Team Contact or Staff Contact? w3c/process#108, by @dwsinger.
-
-
2 issues closed.
-
A1 w3c/process#124.
-
-
1 issue reopened.
-
17 issues received 56 new comments.
-
Who at W3C can request publication of an Amended Recommendation? w3c/process#123 (20 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @palemieux)
-
Revert section 3.4 default in WG voting rules to Process 2017 w3c/process#121 (8 comments by @chaals, @dbaron, @dwsinger, @gsnedders, @michaelchampion, @riannella, @tantek)
-
Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter w3c/process#24 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Hard Requirements for Security, Privacy, Internationalisation and Accessibility Considerations w3c/process#117 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (2 comments by @dwsinger)
-
Should the process allow REC->WD transition directly? w3c/process#103 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @swickr)
-
Voting notice before it starts or before it ends? w3c/process#109 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year w3c/process#34 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
1 pull request opened.
-
careful what you ask for w3c/process#119, by @chaals.
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
18 issues opened.
-
Audit of Members / Quorum? w3c/process#107, by @edent.
-
Should the process allow REC->WD transition directly? w3c/process#103, by @dbaron.
-
changes section is incomplete w3c/process#98, by @dbaron.
-
update graphics w3c/process#91, by @chaals.
-
Definition of "extraordinary" in 7.2 w3c/process#89, by @LJWatson.
-
Proposals to rescind or obsolete? w3c/process#88, by @LJWatson.
-
Define "normally" in 6.2.2 w3c/process#87, by @LJWatson.
-
Duplication of text w3c/process#86, by @LJWatson.
-
Are there Private Working Drafts? w3c/process#85, by @LJWatson.
-
Public Working Draft or Working Draft? w3c/process#84, by @LJWatson.
-
Written notification? w3c/process#83, by @LJWatson.
-
Duplicated links w3c/process#82, by @LJWatson.
-
Unclear grammar in Abstract w3c/process#80, by @LJWatson.
-
Process supporting "Living Standards"? w3c/process#79, by @joanmarie.
-
-
11 issues closed.
-
Public Working Draft or Working Draft? w3c/process#84.
-
changes section is incomplete w3c/process#98.
-
Proposals to rescind or obsolete? w3c/process#88.
-
Are there Private Working Drafts? w3c/process#85.
-
Define "normally" in 6.2.2 w3c/process#87.
-
Unclear grammar in Abstract w3c/process#80.
-
ToC/document mismatches w3c/process#56.
-
-
31 issues received 139 new comments.
-
Re-craft and re-insert the 60-day delay between charter review and Call for Participation w3c/process#33 (17 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @vfournier17)
-
Improve Errata management in W3C w3c/process#5 (12 comments by @dontcallmedom, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @nigelmegitt, @plehegar)
-
Do we need a superseded status for older specs? w3c/process#36 (11 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @tantek, @vfournier17, @ylafon)
-
Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year w3c/process#34 (10 comments by @chaals, @dontcallmedom, @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion)
-
The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes w3c/process#48 (9 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
Updates to sections 5.2.2 and 2.1.3.1 w3c/process#63 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @koalie, @wseltzer)
-
Process supporting "Living Standards"? w3c/process#79 (5 comments by @cookiecrook, @dwsinger, @joanmarie, @michaelchampion)
-
Definition of "extraordinary" in 7.2 w3c/process#89 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion)
-
Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter w3c/process#24 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Should participants in Working Groups be allowed to represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#9 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @vfournier17)
-
Should the process allow REC->WD transition directly? w3c/process#103 (2 comments by @dbaron, @dwsinger)
-
consider keeping 'other than to remove features explicitly identified as "at risk"'? w3c/process#97 (2 comments by @chaals, @michaelchampion)
-
Consistency issue: is it 28 days or four weeks? w3c/process#44 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @vfournier17)
-
"next steps" for CR/PR/REC seem out of sync with rules for revising a recommendation w3c/process#95 (1 comment by @chaals)
-
What are the rights and obligations of non-member participants in the creation of a member submission? w3c/process#19 (1 comment by @vfournier17)
-
Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members w3c/process#67 (1 comment by @vfournier17)
-
Add reference to Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CEPC) in the Process Document w3c/process#30 (1 comment by @vfournier17)
-
-
15 pull requests opened.
-
Don't open ballot at CR w3c/process#105, by @wseltzer.
-
Makes Working Draft consistent; fixes #84 w3c/process#104, by @LJWatson.
-
Minor editorials w3c/process#102, by @dwsinger.
-
Updated for accuracy w3c/process#101, by @Sleavely.
-
[6.9] "advise against using" is too strong w3c/process#100, by @swickr.
-
Editorial suggestions w3c/process#99, by @swickr.
-
Fix typo ("If a the" -> "If the"). w3c/process#94, by @dbaron.
-
Editorial improvements to the Amended Rec process text w3c/process#93, by @dwsinger.
-
Corrects minor editorial errors w3c/process#90, by @LJWatson.
-
Clarify Voting Procedures w3c/process#81, by @chaals.
-
Editorial fixes w3c/process#78, by @xfq.
-
document the end of the appeal process, fixes #48 w3c/process#77, by @dwsinger.
-
Minor editorial fixes w3c/process#75, by @xfq.
-
13 pull requests merged.
-
Minor editorials w3c/process#102.
-
Makes Working Draft consistent; fixes #84 w3c/process#104.
-
Don't open ballot at CR w3c/process#105.
-
Editorial suggestions w3c/process#99.
-
Clarify Voting Procedures w3c/process#81.
-
Fix typo ("If a the" -> "If the"). w3c/process#94.
-
[6.9] "advise against using" is too strong w3c/process#100.
-
Editorial improvements to the Amended Rec process text w3c/process#93.
-
Editorial fixes w3c/process#78.
-
Corrects minor editorial errors w3c/process#90.
-
document the end of the appeal process, fixes #48 w3c/process#77.
-
Minor editorial fixes w3c/process#75.
-
-
2 pull requests closed.
-
Cleanup w3c/process#106.
-
Any charter can be subject to "extended review" w3c/process#74.
-
-
11 pull requests received 36 new comments.
-
Amended Recommendation to facilitate Maintenance w3c/process#61 (8 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @vfournier17)
-
who can dismiss a group member why? w3c/process#40 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Any charter can be subject to "extended review" w3c/process#74 (3 comments by @chaals, @vfournier17)
-
Editorial improvements to the Amended Rec process text w3c/process#93 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @plehegar)
-
w3c/standards-track
-
2 issues received 2 new comments.
-
definition of "aspirational" should be further clarified w3c/standards-track#23 (1 comment by @tantek)
-
GitHub
w3c/process
-
3 issues opened.
-
Updates to sections 5.2.2 and 2.1.3.1 w3c/process#63, by @koalie.
-
22 issues closed.
-
Proposed changes to TAG makeup w3c/process#52.
-
What is a "Memorandum of Understanding"? w3c/process#13.
-
Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document w3c/process#26.
-
Duplicate sentences in Chapter 6 w3c/process#55.
-
Consistency issue: is it 28 days or four weeks? w3c/process#44.
-
Do we need a superseded status for older specs? w3c/process#36.
-
Definition of obsolete w3c/process#57.
-
Are there things the director should not be able to delegate? w3c/process#20.
-
Can a group member represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#27.
-
Meeting guests need to respect patent policy w3c/process#12.
-
Does process adequately cater for public input? w3c/process#18.
-
Clarify the requirements on meetings and workshops w3c/process#3.
-
Do we need separate Errata and REC Track Processes? w3c/process#22.
-
Errata access from TR page w3c/process#21.
-
Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, ...) w3c/process#16.
-
Fast Track Submission to PR w3c/process#41.
-
Are the role and make-up of the TAG adequately defined? w3c/process#4.
-
-
2 issues reopened.
-
Should the Process define Business and Community Groups? w3c/process#17, by @chaals.
-
36 issues received 120 new comments.
-
Re-craft and re-insert the 60-day delay between charter review and Call for Participation w3c/process#33 (18 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion, @vfournier17, @wseltzer)
-
Updates to sections 5.2.2 and 2.1.3.1 w3c/process#63 (9 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @koalie, @michaelchampion)
-
can the AB/TAG chair ask for a special election in *advance* of a known upcoming vacancy? w3c/process#62 (9 comments by @chaals, @dbaron, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60 (8 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
Do we need a superseded status for older specs? w3c/process#36 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @LJWatson)
-
Fast Track Submission to PR w3c/process#41 (6 comments by @chaals, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion, @sandhawke)
-
The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes w3c/process#48 (5 comments by @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion, @paulbrucecotton)
-
Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document w3c/process#26 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @wseltzer)
-
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, @dontcallmedom)
-
Sections 3.4 and 6.2.6 have different statements about Voting rules in a Charter w3c/process#24 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Are there things the director should not be able to delegate? w3c/process#20 (3 comments by @dwsinger)
-
Should the Process define Business and Community Groups? w3c/process#17 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Should participants in Working Groups be allowed to represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#9 (2 comments by @dwsinger)
-
How should consortia which are members of W3C nominate representatives and commit IPR? w3c/process#25 (2 comments by @dwsinger)
-
Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause? w3c/process#23 (2 comments by @dwsinger)
-
Requirements for republishing a CR with non-substantive changes w3c/process#8 (2 comments by @dwsinger)
-
Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, ...) w3c/process#16 (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 @dwsinger)
-
What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG? w3c/process#2 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
-
11 pull requests opened.
-
Any charter can be subject to "extended review" w3c/process#74, by @chaals.
-
Fix #52 - update TAG makeup w3c/process#73, by @chaals.
-
Fix #33 allow for extended review w3c/process#72, by @chaals.
-
Fix #13 define an MoU w3c/process#71, by @chaals.
-
Revert "There is just one vote in elections, which are STV" w3c/process#70, by @chaals.
-
There is just one vote in elections, which are STV w3c/process#69, by @chaals.
-
Allow anticiapted special elections w3c/process#68, by @chaals.
-
Updates definitions of Obsolete and Superseded w3c/process#66, by @LJWatson.
-
s/only contains/contains only/ w3c/process#65, by @wseltzer.
-
Remove undefined term "affiliate" w3c/process#64, by @wseltzer.
-
Amended Recommendation to facilitate Maintenance w3c/process#61, by @plehegar.
-
-
14 pull requests merged.
-
Fix #52 - update TAG makeup w3c/process#73.
-
Amended Recommendation to facilitate Maintenance w3c/process#61.
-
Fix #33 allow for extended review w3c/process#72.
-
Fix #13 define an MoU w3c/process#71.
-
s/only contains/contains only/ w3c/process#65.
-
say 28 days not four weeks w3c/process#49.
-
who can dismiss a group member why? w3c/process#40.
-
Revert "There is just one vote in elections, which are STV" w3c/process#70.
-
There is just one vote in elections, which are STV w3c/process#69.
-
Allow anticiapted special elections w3c/process#68.
-
Updates definitions of Obsolete and Superseded w3c/process#66.
-
A W3C Recommendation can be rescinded or obsolete w3c/process#59.
-
Remove undefined term "affiliate" w3c/process#64.
-
Editorial fixes w3c/process#58.
-
-
2 pull requests closed.
-
Normatively require adherence to CEPC w3c/process#51.
-
Editorial: Obsoletion may be because a Rec is superseded w3c/process#50.
-
-
9 pull requests received 16 new comments.
-
Revert "There is just one vote in elections, which are STV" w3c/process#70 (2 comments by @chaals, @michaelchampion)
-
There is just one vote in elections, which are STV w3c/process#69 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
GitHub
w3c/process
-
6 issues opened.
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60, by @jeffjaffe.
-
Definition of obsolete w3c/process#57, by @LJWatson.
-
ToC/document mismatches w3c/process#56, by @xfq.
-
Duplicate sentences in Chapter 6 w3c/process#55, by @xfq.
-
Proposed changes to TAG makeup w3c/process#52, by @chaals.
-
The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes w3c/process#48, by @dwsinger.
-
-
3 issues closed.
-
(Minor) Substantive changes *must not* be made... (in PR) w3c/process#43.
-
Team submission consensus w3c/process#11.
-
-
16 issues received 93 new comments.
-
The appeals process doesn't actually describe how an appeal finishes w3c/process#48 (27 comments by @dwsinger, @frivoal, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion, @Mitch77, @wseltzer)
-
Do we need a superseded status for older specs? w3c/process#36 (17 comments by @caribouW3, @chaals, @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @michaelchampion, @tantek)
-
Clarify the voting process w3c/process#60 (11 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe, @michaelchampion)
-
Should participants in Working Groups be allowed to represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#9 (11 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @vfournier17)
-
Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year w3c/process#34 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @vfournier17)
-
Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause? w3c/process#23 (4 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG? w3c/process#2 (3 comments by @chaals, @paulbrucecotton, @vfournier17)
-
Automatic WD publishing tool may change the W3C center of gravity around WGs w3c/process#15 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Can a group member represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#27 (2 comments by @chaals, @vfournier17)
-
Consistency issue: is it 28 days or four weeks? w3c/process#44 (2 comments by @chaals, @vfournier17)
-
-
7 pull requests opened.
-
A W3C Recommendation can be rescinded or obsolete w3c/process#59, by @xfq.
-
Editorial fixes w3c/process#58, by @xfq.
-
Allow representation of multiple members w3c/process#54, by @chaals.
-
synch to latest w3c/process#53, by @chaals.
-
Normatively require adherence to CEPC w3c/process#51, by @chaals.
-
Editorial: Obsoletion may be because a Rec is superseded w3c/process#50, by @chaals.
-
say 28 days not four weeks w3c/process#49, by @chaals.
-
-
1 pull request merged.
-
synch to latest w3c/process#53.
-
-
3 pull requests received 5 new comments.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
3 issues opened.
-
What should be the effect of voting for No Other Candidate w3c/process#47, by @michaelchampion.
-
Consistency issue: is it 28 days or four weeks? w3c/process#44, by @iherman.
-
(Minor) Substantive changes *must not* be made... (in PR) w3c/process#43, by @iherman.
-
-
1 issue closed.
-
Are the role and structure of the AB adequately defined? w3c/process#6.
-
-
1 issue reopened.
-
15 issues received 51 new comments.
-
Do we need a superseded status for older specs? w3c/process#36 (8 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @paulbrucecotton, @tantek)
-
What should the requirements be for specifications produced by more than one WG? w3c/process#2 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @LJWatson, @paulbrucecotton)
-
Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause? w3c/process#23 (7 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @jeffjaffe)
-
7.1.1 Charter reviews on a public communication channel? w3c/process#38 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @iherman, @michaelchampion)
-
What should be the effect of voting for No Other Candidate w3c/process#47 (3 comments by @dwsinger, @swickr)
-
Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document w3c/process#26 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Consistency issue: is it 28 days or four weeks? w3c/process#44 (3 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @iherman)
-
Automatic WD publishing tool may change the W3C center of gravity around WGs w3c/process#15 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Add reference to Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CEPC) in the Process Document w3c/process#30 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Should participants in Working Groups be allowed to represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#9 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @vfournier17)
-
Re-craft and re-insert the 60-day delay between charter review and Call for Participation w3c/process#33 (1 comment by @vfournier17)
-
-
2 pull requests opened.
-
Update index.html w3c/process#46, by @iherman.
-
Update index.html w3c/process#45, by @iherman.
-
-
3 pull requests merged.
-
Update index.html w3c/process#46.
-
Remove one last mention of PER w3c/process#42.
-
Update index.html w3c/process#45.
-
-
2 pull requests received 3 new comments.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
1 issue opened.
-
Fast Track Submission to PR w3c/process#41, by @sandhawke.
-
-
2 issues closed.
-
The graveyard of /TR w3c/process#14.
-
-
21 issues received 46 new comments.
-
7.1.1 Charter reviews on a public communication channel? w3c/process#38 (12 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @michaelchampion, @paulbrucecotton, @wseltzer)
-
Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause? w3c/process#23 (6 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Should participants in Working Groups be allowed to represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#9 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger, @sandhawke)
-
Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG? w3c/process#31 (2 comments by @dwsinger, @michaelchampion)
-
Add reference to Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CEPC) in the Process Document w3c/process#30 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Re-craft and re-insert the 60-day delay between charter review and Call for Participation w3c/process#33 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Automatic WD publishing tool may change the W3C center of gravity around WGs w3c/process#15 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings w3c/process#1 (1 comment by @dwsinger)
-
Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, ...) w3c/process#16 (1 comment by @chaals)
-
-
3 pull requests opened.
-
Remove one last mention of PER w3c/process#42, by @tripu.
-
who can dismiss a group member why? w3c/process#40, by @chaals.
-
Proposed addition of public channel for AC review w3c/process#39, by @wseltzer.
-
-
2 pull requests received 3 new comments.
GitHub
w3c/process
-
37 issues opened.
-
7.1.1 Charter reviews on a public communication channel? w3c/process#38, by @wseltzer.
-
Link in section 6.10 goes 404 w3c/process#37, by @dwsinger.
-
Do we need a superseded status for older specs? w3c/process#36, by @dwsinger.
-
Diagrams call Editorial changes "minor changes" w3c/process#29, by @dwsinger.
-
Can a group member represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#27, by @dwsinger.
-
Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document w3c/process#26, by @dwsinger.
-
Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause? w3c/process#23, by @dwsinger.
-
Do we need separate Errata and REC Track Processes? w3c/process#22, by @dwsinger.
-
Errata access from TR page w3c/process#21, by @dwsinger.
-
Are there things the director should not be able to delegate? w3c/process#20, by @dwsinger.
-
Does process adequately cater for public input? w3c/process#18, by @dwsinger.
-
Should the Process define Business and Community Groups? w3c/process#17, by @dwsinger.
-
Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, ...) w3c/process#16, by @dwsinger.
-
The graveyard of /TR w3c/process#14, by @dwsinger.
-
What is a "Memorandum of Understanding"? w3c/process#13, by @dwsinger.
-
Meeting guests need to respect patent policy w3c/process#12, by @dwsinger.
-
Team submission consensus w3c/process#11, by @dwsinger.
-
Are W3C hosts members of W3C? w3c/process#10, by @dwsinger.
-
Requirements for republishing a CR with non-substantive changes w3c/process#8, by @dwsinger.
-
Chairs are asking for clarification for Wide Review w3c/process#7, by @dwsinger.
-
Are the role and structure of the AB adequately defined? w3c/process#6, by @dwsinger.
-
Improve Errata management in W3C w3c/process#5, by @dwsinger.
-
Are the role and make-up of the TAG adequately defined? w3c/process#4, by @dwsinger.
-
Clarify the requirements on meetings and workshops w3c/process#3, by @dwsinger.
-
AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings w3c/process#1, by @dwsinger.
-
-
1 issue closed.
-
Link in section 6.10 goes 404 w3c/process#37.
-
-
3 issues received 9 new comments.
-
Should we have a nomination committee seeking candidates for the AB and TAG? w3c/process#31 (5 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
Can a group member represent more than one organisation? w3c/process#27 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings w3c/process#1 (2 comments by @chaals, @dwsinger)
-
-
1 pull request opened.
-
Fix links to TAG charter w3c/process#35, by @wseltzer.
-
-
1 pull request merged.
-
Fix links to TAG charter w3c/process#35.
-
-
1 pull request received 1 new comment.
GitHub
w3c/standards-track
-
1 pull request opened.
-
fix: typo w3c/standards-track#26, by @marcoscaceres.
-
GitHub
w3c/standards-track
-
1 issue opened.
-
Document and analyze obsolete RECs w3c/standards-track#25, by @msporny.
-
-
1 issue received 1 new comment.
-
definition of "aspirational" should be further clarified w3c/standards-track#23 (1 comment by @msporny)
-