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

Re: a couple of concerns

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:02:52 -0800
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Cc: public-dwbp-comments@w3.org, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Message-ID: <568D56CC.9030104@lbl.gov>
Thanks, Bernadette,
I did agree with the inclusion of the new BP for REST APIs. In fact, 
I've been pushing to include an updated version for a long time. But 
when I reviewed the doc prior to the vote, the new BP to use REST APIs 
was not yet in the doc at all. I honestly don't recall how long before 
the vote I reviewed it, but it may have been just a few minutes before 
it got added in. At any rate, my understanding at the time of the vote 
was that that piece was not yet in but going to be added as it appeared 
in the Google doc. When it did appear, it had been edited from how it 
had appeared in the Google doc. There was discussion during the meeting 
of the vote about making some small changes in that section, so I assume 
that is the editing that took place (clearly after the vote), but I 
didn't have an opportunity to see the changes. Those late edits are the 
source of the trouble. I agreed with the text in Google doc form but not 
with the edited version. I do, however, also feel that the Google doc 
version should have been included much sooner and been part of the doc 
when the WG reviewed it. Getting a little stricter with ourselves about 
having the document in a complete and frozen state for an explicit 
review period should prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
-Annette

On 1/6/16 6:42 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2016 18:03:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 6 January 2016 18:03:33 UTC