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

Re: Candidate Recommendation Transition Request for XForms 1.1

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:13:15 +0100
Message-ID: <97498306.20071126221315@w3.org>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
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>

On Monday, November 26, 2007, 8:45:44 PM, John wrote:

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

Yes (that will teach me to read email from oldest to newest; I stopped
that and am now catching up from the other end. i have also read the
minutes of the meeting).

JB> The scheduling problem here was that non-overlapping vacation
JB> times by all the participants left us with no ability to schedule the call before 2008.
JB>  
JB> For the record, I did ask Steve whether he would prefer to wait
JB> until his and your return in December, but he indicated it was
JB> reasonable to proceed on last Wednesday.

No problem.

JB> The minutes of the meeting and the issues discussed appear in
JB> Steven's draft of the director's decision. 
JB>  
JB> It should be noted that we did not spend time on the particular
JB> issue that you pointed out.

(Since the minutes record your saying:

John: No formal objections in the last call comments

then it doesn't surprise me that the formal objection was not
discussed. )

JB>  In summary, the reason is that Bjoern
JB> did not raise a formal objection to the advancement of XForms 1.1
JB> to CR.  

Right.

JB> More generally, there were *no* formal objections to advancement to CR.

I'm sure Bjoern would actually *approve* of that level of fine-grained
hair splitting :)  and its correct that he was objecting to LCWD not
CR, and that on the basis of comments on a different specification,
too.

JB> In Bjoern's case, it is a little difficult to fully characterize
JB> what happened using only "lossy" state qualifiers and abbreviated
JB> notes.  Bjoern did participate in a thread of discussion with me
JB> on the editor's list.  Later, the working group actually sent
JB> separate emails responding to the relevant issues separately;

Yes and those were listed; it seems that the actual technical issues
were resolved long ago.

JB> he
JB> didn't respond most of those, except the one that still concerned
JB> him.  After receiving a further clarification, he didn't respond
JB> further.  Overall, I felt it best to classify the interaction as
JB> "Agree" rather than "No response" (which is an implicit agree),
JB> because he did respond where he felt it necessary.

Okay. Thanks for the additional explanation.

To be clear, in my mail earlier today I was saying that his objection
(to LCWD) needed to be addressed, but didn't feel it would be upheld.

JB>  
JB> Regardless of the title of his last call comment, we handled it
JB> as a last call comment, agreeing to and accepting all but one
JB> point, and defering that one other point.

Yes. I think it was handled well.

JB>  By comparison, here is
JB> the trajectory that a formal objection to advancement to CR would take:
JB> 1) reviewer provides last call comment 
JB> 2) working group rejects or defers, or it resolves in a way not satisfactory to the reviewer
JB> 3) the reviewer formally objects to advancement of the document
JB> based on dissatisfaction with the handling of the reviewer's comment
JB>  
JB> Neither Bjoern nor any other member of the public formally
JB> objected to how we handled their last call comments.   

Agreed.

JB> Finally, note that a number of Bjoern's concerns did seem to be
JB> about process-related issues for XForms 1.0.

Bjoern also comments on the process document itself, and i sometimes
wonder if his comments on other specifications are more by way of
worked examples for a process document comment than about the
particular specification under discussion.

JB>  In that regard,
JB> Bjoern also had another opportunity to object during the recent
JB> advancement of XForms 1.0 Third Edition, but he did not object,
JB> and we did not expect him to do so because we did address his concerns.

Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns, John, even if I did
express them after the transition call had taken place.

JB> Best regards, 
JB> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
JB>  STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
JB>  Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
JB>  Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
JB>  IBM Victoria Software Lab
JB>  E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  
JB>  
JB>  Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
JB>  
JB>   
JB>  
JB>  
JB>    Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>  
JB> Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org 
JB> 11/26/2007 09:57 AM 
JB>    
JB> Please respond to
JB>  Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
JB>  
JB>      
JB> To
JB>  Steve Bratt <steve@w3.org>   
JB> cc
JB>  John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, timbl@w3.org, W3C Comm Team
JB> <w3t-comm@w3.org>, <chairs@w3.org>, "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>
JB> Subject
JB>  Re: Candidate Recommendation Transition Request for XForms 1.1 
JB>      
JB>  
JB>  
JB>  

JB>  On Monday, November 19, 2007, 3:50:37 AM, Steve wrote:
JB>  
 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.
JB>  
JB>  I also noted one request for a formal objection. 
JB> 
JB> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2007/xforms11-lc-doc-20071114.html#ssec53
JB>  
JB>  Its not clear that the objection should be sustained, since for
JB> one thing its for a *different spec* and also the current
JB> specification does not display the problem that was originally
JB> complained about, which was already fixed in XForms 1.1 in fact.
JB> The commentor is making a process point here, not a technical one. 
JB>  
JB>  But it should still be discussed and agreed on the call; marking
JB> it as user position: 'agree' is odd since the original commentor did not respond.
JB>  
 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:
JB>  
 SB>> Mon 19 Nov: noon - 2pm; 4-5pm
 SB>> Wed 21 Nov: 11am - 4pm
JB>  
JB>  (I was on vacation that week)
JB>  
 SB>> (in China the following week)
JB>  
JB>  I can do any of the times listed below, except Tues 9am-11am and Fri 10-11am.
JB>  
 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
JB>  
JB>  
JB>  -- 
JB>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
JB>  Interaction Domain Leader
JB>  Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
JB>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
JB>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
JB>  
JB>  
JB>   
JB>  



-- 
 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 21:13:29 UTC

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