See also: IRC log
SteveZ: with whom should we have the [Director's] Transition Call?
Jeff: Tim may want to take the call himself
... otherwise Philippe Le Hegaret often takes the calls for the Director
Ralph: do we know which of the issues Chaals said he would raise in response to Liam's comments Chaals considers important before going to AC Review?
SteveZ: from his comments I think there are two:
issue-96?
<trackbot> issue-96 -- Should there be clear requirements on maintaining errata? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/96
[not 96]
SteveZ: Chaals' comment on 96 says it doesn't need to be fixed this time
issue-95?
<trackbot> issue-95 -- Clarify the process of moving from REC to edited REC -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/95
SteveZ: I don't believe a flow diagram is added
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Apr/0039.html "New Editor's draft of Process" [Chaals 24-Apr]
<jeff> Jeff: It seems that we have enough to go forward for AC review
<jeff> Steve: Chaals did address the most important of Liam's comments
Ralph: Chaals says he would like to resolve issue-95 but I would agree to proceed with that issue remaining open
-> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html Editor's LAST CALL DRAFT Proposed World Wide Web Consortium Process Document
ACTION: Jeff figure out whether we need a transition call; if so - when and with whom [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/28-w3process-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Figure out whether we need a transition call; if so - when and with whom [on Jeff Jaffe - due 2014-05-05].
Wayne: Chaals can fix editorial things after the Group resolves to proceed
SteveZ: I propose to set next Monday as the
deadline for any final document
... then we'd start AC Review
... the intent is to have AC Review remain open through the June AC
meeting
... for a minimum review period of 4 weeks we could still start the
review as late as early May
... could we start the AC review on Tuesday ?
<jeff> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess
Jeff: 12 Process Evolution says "similar",
not "identical"
... do we strictly need a Director's Call ?
SteveZ: I believe the intent at the time
that was written was that all the steps should be followed, including
the Director's Call
... I will send a transition request to the chairs list
... and separately send email to Chaals suggesting that other changes
either be postponed to a future revision or that draft changes be sent
this week
... Jeff will check with Tim to see if he wants a Director's Call
issue-94?
<trackbot> issue-94 -- Who should be informed when a transition is declined, and of what? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/94
SteveZ: Ian noted that there had never been a declined transition request
Ralph: I understood that Liam's point in issue-94 was that the reason for declining a transition must also be shared. I don't consider this critical as the Director always gives his reasons
Jeff: accolades to the chair
[adjourned]