W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Candidate Recommendation Transition Request for XForms 1.1

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:45:44 -0800
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: chairs@w3.org, "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>, public-forms-request@w3.org, Steve Bratt <steve@w3.org>, timbl@w3.org, W3C Comm Team <w3t-comm@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF29565105.3EC19D5B-ON8825739F.00653243-8825739F.006C8F50@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Chris,

Now that you are back from vacation, you will undoubtedly soon notice that 
the meeting was held last week on Wednesday.

The scheduling problem here was that non-overlapping vacation times by all 
the participants left us with no ability to schedule the call before 2008.

For the record, I did ask Steve whether he would prefer to wait until his 
and your return in December, but he indicated it was reasonable to proceed 
on last Wednesday.

The minutes of the meeting and the issues discussed appear in Steven's 
draft of the director's decision.

It should be noted that we did not spend time on the particular issue that 
you pointed out.  In summary, the reason is that Bjoern did not raise a 
formal objection to the advancement of XForms 1.1 to CR.  More generally, 
there were *no* formal objections to advancement to CR.

In Bjoern's case, it is a little difficult to fully characterize what 
happened using only "lossy" state qualifiers and abbreviated notes. Bjoern 
did participate in a thread of discussion with me on the editor's list. 
Later, the working group actually sent separate emails responding to the 
relevant issues separately; he didn't respond most of those, except the 
one that still concerned him.  After receiving a further clarification, he 
didn't respond further.  Overall, I felt it best to classify the 
interaction as "Agree" rather than "No response" (which is an implicit 
agree), because he did respond where he felt it necessary.

Regardless of the title of his last call comment, we handled it as a last 
call comment, agreeing to and accepting all but one point, and defering 
that one other point.  By comparison, here is the trajectory that a formal 
objection to advancement to CR would take:
1) reviewer provides last call comment
2) working group rejects or defers, or it resolves in a way not 
satisfactory to the reviewer
3) the reviewer formally objects to advancement of the document based on 
dissatisfaction with the handling of the reviewer's comment

Neither Bjoern nor any other member of the public formally objected to how 
we handled their last call comments. 

Finally, note that a number of Bjoern's concerns did seem to be about 
process-related issues for XForms 1.0.  In that regard, Bjoern also had 
another opportunity to object during the recent advancement of XForms 1.0 
Third Edition, but he did not object, and we did not expect him to do so 
because we did address his concerns.

Best regards,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
11/26/2007 09:57 AM
Please respond to
Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>


To
Steve Bratt <steve@w3.org>
cc
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, timbl@w3.org, W3C Comm Team 
<w3t-comm@w3.org>, <chairs@w3.org>, "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Candidate Recommendation Transition Request for XForms 1.1







On Monday, November 19, 2007, 3:50:37 AM, Steve wrote:

SB> * This comment:
SB> 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2007/xforms11-lc-doc-20071114.html#ssec124
SB> was rejected by the group and the commenter was unhappy.  We can
SB> talk about this, and the other "editorial" (so marked) comments
SB> that the commenters were not happy about on the call.

I also noted one request for a formal objection. 
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2007/xforms11-lc-doc-20071114.html#ssec53

Its not clear that the objection should be sustained, since for one thing 
its for a *different spec* and also the current specification does not 
display the problem that was originally complained about, which was 
already fixed in XForms 1.1 in fact. The commentor is making a process 
point here, not a technical one. 

But it should still be discussed and agreed on the call; marking it as 
user position: 'agree' is odd since the original commentor did not 
respond.

SB> I'm happy to go forward with a transition call.  Here are times
SB> (US ET) in the coming week that work for me:

SB> Mon 19 Nov: noon - 2pm; 4-5pm
SB> Wed 21 Nov: 11am - 4pm

(I was on vacation that week)

SB> (in China the following week)

I can do any of the times listed below, except Tues 9am-11am and Fri 
10-11am.

SB> Mon 3 Dec: noon - 5pm
SB> Tue 4 Dec: 9am - 2:30pm
SB> Wed 5 Dec: noon - 4pm
SB> Fri 7 Dec: any time


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 19:46:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:46 UTC