Daniel Appelquist

This makes sense to me and could mitigate against the issues raised here https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/652.

Hi folks - just to follow this up: I'd really like us to be able to close our [TAG review](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/652) with a positive outcome. We're blocked [on the issue](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/652#issuecomment-915113636) that...

Just discussing this in today's TAG f2f. Even though this proposal has come out of a TAG session originally, we think it can be improved. Firstly, yes the TAG agrees...

There's been sone discussion on AC-Forum on what role the TAG should or shouldn't play regarding charter development and review. Shall we fold that in here as well?

Actually I see this was already discussed in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/328 ?

Hi @iamwillbar thanks this has been on my mind so I'm glad to see someone else has been thinking about it as well. I recognise this might be opening a...

The issue is that the current license is an open source license which is intended for software. Specification licenses generally are better suited towards specifications. The [Readme on the Community...

For further context, I'm working for Snyk. We are a consumer and user of the PURL spec.

> To guarantee adoption, it is best to ensure that the PURL specification meets the adoption policies of the standards it wishes to be referenced by? I am participating in...

I agree this is less ambiguous. However, I think it's also less desirable. To be clear, I think the "each" should apply to each prospective appointee rather than within each...