update FAQ

Lots of trimming; could probably use more.

reordered the timing answer, for clarity.

Got rid of signed text in the "how to prove" section.

index.html

@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ <h2><a href="#faq">FAQ</a></h2>
 <dt>Q: Is <i class="term">security</i> and/or <i class="term">privacy</i> review mandatory before a <i class="term">First Public Working Draft</i> is published?</dt>
 <dd>
 <ul>
-<li>A: Strictly speaking, no.  However, getting early review for documents with features that might have security and/or privacy implications is <strong>strongly encouraged</strong> - security and privacy issues can require significant changes in specs, and it helps to identify them early.</li>
+ <li>A: It is <strong>strongly encouraged</strong> but not required.  Resolving security and privacy issues can require significant changes in specs, so it helps to identify them early.</li>
 </ul>
 </dd>
 
@@ -230,15 +230,14 @@ <h2><a href="#faq">FAQ</a></h2>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>Q: How does a group prove its documents have had wide review before proceeding to CR?</dt>
-<dd><ul><li>A: See <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0133.html">How to work with (experiment with) Wide Review</a> -SNZ</li>
-<li>A: Keep a Disposition of Comments (DoC) Document that shows review comments and acknowledgements that have been received. It is the distribution of the reviewers that shows the review has been wide.-SNZ</li>
-<li>A: Ask the W3C Team if your proposed approach is likely to meet the requirements. -SNZ</li></ul></dd>
+<dd><ul><li>A: Requests to the horizontal review groups will appear in Github, as above. </li>
+<li>A: Keep a Disposition of Comments (DoC) Document showing comments received and a summary of their resolution.</li></ul></dd>
 
 <dt>Q: Is there such a thing as too many reviews?</dt>
 <dd><ul><li>A: Not really</li></ul></dd>
 
 <dt>Q: Is it possible to make too many requests for review?</dt>
-<dd><ul><li> A: unfortunately, yes there is. Multiple requests for reviews can quickly result in a situation of diminishing returns. To help address this, subsequent review requests should clearly identify the exact differences between the last review and current review.</li>
+<dd><ul><li> A: Yes.  To help the review groups, only request updated reviews when substantive changea have been made, and clearly identify the changes since the last review.</li>
 <li> A: This is also the reason that the Process clearly suggests there should be (TR) Working Drafts published when there are "significant changes that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group", rather than every day or only twice in the life of a spec…</li>
 <li> A: TR Working Drafts are also useful for reviews since they provide a dated snapshot which can be recovered when the review comments are being discussed. Trying to discuss review comments against a document which has changed out of all recognition can be a frustrating and inefficient experience.</li></ul></dd>
 </dl>