Coralie Mercier

@csarven I just spent a half-hour re-reading this issue's content and I think no further edit to https://www.w3.org/standards/types/ is necessary (but if you think differently, I welcome proposed edits). For...

Belatedly I've applied the changes from @csarven in #108 to https://www.w3.org/standards/types/ Sarven, please feel free to close at your convenience if you're satisfied.

Thank you! I didn't dare open as an issue!

@riannella when iterations on the W3C blog post are done, please kindly package a final version so that I don't risk missing any of the comments in this page. 🙏

(belatedly) published 2005-10-23: https://www.w3.org/blog/2025/w3c-standard-odrl-policy-gaining-industry-adoption/

> Given that @koalie has explained existing policy over in w3c-ac-forum, I don't think Process changes are needed. The [policy for the w3c-ac-forum mailing list](https://www.w3.org/2015/10/ac-forum-pol) was [revised in November 2022](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2022OctDec/0022.html)...

> As per the minutes of the last call [above](https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/912#issuecomment-2402519980), the reasons for proposing to reject this PR are: > > The Team already has general authority to manage communications,...