Re: w3process-ISSUE-154 (AC review default confidenitality): SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews? [Process Document]

30.01.2015, 22:45, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>:
>> šDoes there need to be a default channel?
>
> What problem does the default channel cause that would be worth even a tiny amount of effort to fix?

Someone might ask why there is a default channel that isn't respected in practice. Or why W3C doesn't follow it's own process - and someone might waste time trying to justify what happens.

The tiny amount of effort required is in fact smaller than explaining it, so we have now expanded the necessary work.

cheers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:23 AM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: w3process-ISSUE-154 (AC review default confidenitality): SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews? [Process Document]
>
> w3process-ISSUE-154 (AC review default confidenitality): SHould there be a default confidentiality level for AC reviews? [Process Document]
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154
>
> Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile
> On product: Process Document
>
> This should be a tiny issue, so I hope we can resolve it in passing.
>
> In section 8.1.1 on AC reviews it says [1] [[[The Team must provide two channels for Advisory Committee review comments:
>
> šš+ šan archived Team-only channel; this is the default channel for reviews.
> š]]]
>
> Does there need to be a default channel?
>
> I would suggest not, others have suggested it is helpful - and others have suggested it is helpful if it is to publish it to the world.

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Sunday, 1 February 2015 02:25:10 UTC