Re: w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)]

On 11/27/2013 5:11 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> Comments below
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:36 PM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" period [Document life cycle (ch 7)]
>
> On 11/27/13 3:13 PM, ext Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:33:51 +1100, Revising W3C Process Community
>> Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> w3process-ISSUE-68 (Ch7-DogFood-The-New-CR): Rather than implement it
>>> across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate"
>>> period [Document life cycle (ch 7)]
>> This is a duplicate of ISSUE-39 which is already open.
> I disagree. Please keep Issue-68 separate.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> SZ: Art, could you please be more specific about what your issue is. We have not yet chosen the method for phasing in a new Chapter 7 assuming such gets approved by an AC Review. You list this as a Chapter 7 issue, but it does not affect any part of Chapter 7, only the method by which it would be phased in and that is not part of the Process. It is, however, part of the discussion. Given that, I am not sure what you mean by a Candidate Period?

I believe Art is requesting that for a period of time, WGs have an 
option to use the current Chapter 7 or the new one.  Since that would 
mean that we have two extant Chapter 7's at once, arguably that is a 
Chapter 7 issue.

>
> Steve Zilles
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 22:42:04 UTC