Nigel Megitt

> This looks like a duplicate of #572 and that one seem to address the comment from @nigelmegitt . @wseltzer , ok to close this pull request and push #572...

TTWG Decision Policy has been 10 working days for many years. This period was chosen, I seem to remember, to allow for any folk taking a 2 week vacation to...

> Speaking with my spec editor hat on, I would find it quite a drag on productivity and timely review if I couldn't edit the ED right after a meeting...

Requiring tests for entry to CR would indeed make the CR exit criteria clearer, and would make WG's more effective, by encouraging them not to accept new features or substantive...

> I need to some research on other bodies requirements on implementations and testing, see if we can get any guidance there. @nrooney I've seen varying practices. One of the...

> In practice at W3C isn't there usually a fair amount of implementation experience before CR? @michaelchampion It varies. It's unusual for their to be _no_ implementation experience before CR,...

> Do we hold off fixing if we don't have a test for the newly defined behavior? @dwsinger Yes! That's exactly the point. Adding a test for the newly defined...

> You know the fix, but the person who understands the tests is unable to fix them immediately. Should you continue to have the glaring error, and wait until tests...

>> Implementation experience is required to show that a specification is sufficiently clear, complete, and relevant to market needs, to ensure that independent interoperable implementations of each feature of the...

> I don't want to slip into the state where people don't bring proposed specs to the W3C until they have it implemented and deployed +1 to this, and observing...