Re: [widgets] P&C: LC#3 and CR#2

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 18:09 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> I am not particularly comfortable with skipping CR#2 especially since we
>> have no way of knowing who is actually implementing our published CR, in
>> particular the normative Conformance Checker requirements that will
>> presumably be removed from the spec. As such, I prefer publishing CR#2 since
>> it sends a clear signal to any implementor the July CR is superseded.
>>
>> Additionally, given the mandatory 2-month exclusion period that will start
>> upon LC#3's publication, it appears the "short route" i.e. skipping CR#2
>> won't actually save us any time. That is, during that same amount of time we
>> can a) publish LC#3 (3 weeks) and b) publish CR#2 with a relatively short CR
>> (e.g. 4 weeks).
>
> I think that this much makes sense.
>
>> A rough schedule would then be: during the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting agree to
>> all changes for LC#3; November 10 LC#3 is published and Exclusion period
>> begins; December 1 LC#3 ends; Dec 9 CR#2 is published; January 5 CR#2 ends
>> as does the Exclusion period; mid January publish PR.
>
> This is the part that I'm not sure I understand. Do we really need to wait
> until the F2F to agree to the changes that need to be made? My understanding
> is that Marcos has almost integrated all of them, and also that we believe
> we now have a level of review way above anything we had before. Why not just
> go into LC#3 next week, and hit CR#2 at the F2F?
>

I agree. But hold up, Robin: I might not be done by next week. I want
to have everything 100% verified, etc. before we republish. I think
Artb has worked with me for long enough to know that almost done means
another month :)

Kind regards,
Marcos


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 10:16:18 UTC