W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > August 2005

Process rant Re: SKOS Core 2nd review

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:28:11 +0200
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "Mark van Assem (E-mail)" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.svdy49kqwxe0ny@widsith.lan>

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:13:35 +0200, Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:

>> ...  I realise we're falling a bit behind the W3C WG recommended 3  
>> month heart beat, Ralph do you think that's a problem?
>
> not a major problem.  We're not doing Rec-track work, so there's
> less heat, it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere (so there's
> more heat :)), and there are Rec-track WGs who have gotten
> away with far longer than 3-month reporting cycles.  Not
> recommended, but not a criminal offense either.

It is not a hanging crime, and groups have got away with far worse in the  
past (running for a year or so without charter, publishing unchartered  
documents while long out of charter, not publishing for well over a year  
are cases that leap to mind).

On the other hand as an AC rep I hope that this mail is more casual in  
tone than the thought processes behind it. W3C process, including the  
various milestones and requirements are as much a part of our contract  
with W3C as the confidentiality agreement. Quite rightly, minor breaches  
of confidentiality are generally raised straight to the relevant AC member  
as a serious problem, and I don't think that the basic requirements placed  
on groups are somehow different. To err is human, to decide that it  
doesn't matter if you just routinely ignore some bits of the contract  
strikes me as stretching a point.

I hope that the heartbeat requirement is actually taken seriously enough  
that failing to publish where the group is up to for a month or so extra  
isn't considered generally acceptable. After all, it is a minimum  
requirement - there is no reason the group can't publish every two months  
if it wants to.

I realise that it this a public group, so it's workings are actually  
available anyway. This suggests that there is nothing really to risk by  
producing a proper published Working Draft, except perhaps ironing out  
kinks in that process. Confidence in W3C is in part based on whether it  
can do what it claims, and meeting mechanical deadlines for document  
drafts is about the easiest of those claims to meet.

Do have a good vacation, and don't worry about this until you get back -  
nobody gets paid enough to spoil their chance at just enjoying themselves  
for a brief period every so often. But please, when you come back to work,  
do try and meet the mechanical parts of the milestones and planning like  
the heartbeat publications...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
   Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Friday, 12 August 2005 08:28:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT