On 1/27/14 10:48 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for
ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an
unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
Hi Marcos,
Strictly speaking there is no r
For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there
has been reached, this sounds like a good idea.
Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a
spec such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached
again.
/ Jonas
On Jan 27, 2014
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:48:18 +0100, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Art,
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring
CFCs for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they
seem to add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
Yes, I strongly sup
onday, January 27, 2014 12:18
To: Marcos Caceres
Cc: public-webapps; Arthur Barstow
Subject: Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re:
[admin] Draft of updated charter available for review
For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there has
bee
Hi Art,
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for
ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an
unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
>
>> I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer
>> providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
>>
>> The goal of the snapshot version of the spec i
On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it
clearer providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to
standardize all widely implemented parts of the
On Friday, January 24, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Jungkee Song wrote:
> >
> > To be clear: I’m concerned that the last time the spec on TR was updated
> > was in 2012. That seems like a big failure to me, specially as when you
> > google for the spec, the on the TR comes up first. This means that mos
On Jan 24, 2014 7:48 AM, "Marcos Caceres" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > > I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work,
although
> > > I think it would be u
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work, although
> > I think it would be useful if the group's XHR Editors would provide a
> > short stat
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work, although
> I think it would be useful if the group's XHR Editors would provide a
> short status and plan.
It would indeed be good. However, it would also be good to ha
11 matches
Mail list logo
