Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

2014-01-28 Thread Arthur Barstow
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

RE: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

2014-01-27 Thread Domenic Denicola
This sounds great. It would be cool if editors ping the relevant list as working drafts get updated, just so everyone can use the lists as an ambient feed of what's going on. But an actual CFC process seems unnecessary. From: Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

2014-01-27 Thread Jonas Sicking
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,

Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

2014-01-27 Thread Charles McCathie Nevile
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:48:18 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com 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.