W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > January 2016

Re: a couple of concerns

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:42:59 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1Pzxmt4fEaYXZffCav-a1Cv3rT_HfNEDsp1A6EDrOAQSk2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Cc: public-dwbp-comments@w3.org, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Hi Annette,

Thanks for your message. I understand your concerns, but I'd like to say
that the changes that you pointed out were made on the document before the
voting and not after the voting. The updates on the BP to use REST APIs
were made one day before the voting and not after (we can check this on
github commits [1]). Maybe the group didn't have a lot of time to discuss
and evaluate this, but Yaso suggested the updates and  sent a message [2]
to the group asking feedback about them. Then, before the voting, the
editors made the merge of the updates.

I just want to make clear that the editors didn't make any editorial change
that could affect the meaning of the doc after the voting.  We are very
careful with this because we understand that there are protocols and rules
that have to be followed.

kind regards,
Bernadette

[1]
https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/commit/d2ebb31e76cbd229f40c0997d622c3155de27911
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Dec/0062.html




2016-01-05 3:35 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>:

> Hi all,
> I’d like to raise a couple of issues that have been bothering me of late
> in our process for developing the DWBP best practices doc. The most recent
> version contained some last-minute changes that I disagree with, which
> points at two different issues.
>
> First, we should not be making editorial changes that change the sense of
> the text after a vote to publish. While I’m sure that the editors have
> never intended to do that, the doc has been undergoing a flurry of
> post-vote changes each time, and these have sometimes affected the meaning.
> I am concerned about the pattern of delays in getting the document into a
> stable state and the lack of stability at the time of voting and
> immediately thereafter. I think we need to be voting on a document that is
> as we expect to publish it, including all changes. This would require a
> publication schedule with dates on which feedback is due and by which
> changes must be made, and those dates should be before the date on which we
> vote to publish.
>





>
> Second, the most recent changes that prompted this concern are the changes
> to the text regarding the best practice to use REST APIs. I took some pains
> to include the two main approaches to using REST in my submission for that
> BP, and while I must admit that my writing was not successful in making the
> distinction clear, since it wasn’t clear enough to the editor to preserve
> it, I was surprised to see how far from my intent the published text
> appeared. I would be happy to give another try at teasing apart the two
> approaches. I do not feel that the current BP reflects what most web
> developers would consider best practices for developing with REST and
> REST-inspired architectures.
> -Annette
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2016 14:43:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 6 January 2016 14:43:47 UTC