W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Final version of the proposed plan

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:42:31 +0200
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Message-ID: <733j39lb583e6ohjdrjq6jo6k6u8uiadej@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>For issues that come in after the deadline:
>
>  - the WG can choose to address them before last call (e.g. for bug 
>fixes, or items that the WG wants to address immediately)
>  - as a default, they would be postponed and addressed as post-Last 
>Call issues.

That is an unfortunate misinterpretation of the proposed plan. Regard-
less of how the Working Group chooses to organise its decision making
process internally, it is still obligated to follow the requirements of
the W3C Process. Issuing a Last Call announcement while having failed
to formally address substantive review comments received more than a
few days earlier is a violation of the W3C Process.

While one could get the impression from reading the proposed plan that
the Working Group has an option to postpone addressing substantive re-
view comments until after the Last Call announcement, and you seem to
have interpreted it that way, that is not an option the Working Group
has under the W3C Process. Hence my suggestion to clarify the proposed
plan.

>> By the way, could you point me to the document the Working Group has
>> published under the provisions of Process section 6.2.7 3rd paragraph?
>
>I'm not sure I understand your question.  Are you looking for a pointer 
>to the draft that was published last week?

Your confusion is surprising. The 3rd paragraph of 6.2.7 is just this:

  In exceptional cases, the Chair MAY ask the Director to be excused
  from this publication requirement. However, in this case, the Working
  Group MUST issue a public status report with rationale why a new draft
  has not been published.

To recall, the bare minimum "publication requirement" is:

  Each Working Group MUST publish a new draft of at least one of its
  active technical reports on the W3C technical reports index [PUB11]
  at least once every three months.

It seems the Working Group has failed to publish anything in May, June,
July, and August; that is more than three months. Accordingly, I expect
there to be a "public status report with rationale why a new draft has
not been published". I could not find any such report linked from the
group's homepage.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 12:43:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:18 UTC