W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Comments on 6 December 2013 Chapter 7 draft

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:07:35 -0600
Cc: "Revising W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E856AC1A-0933-4C5B-8991-14BDF1D7A3A4@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
On Dec 13, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:09:30 +0400, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:50 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:03:30 +0400, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote
> [nsip]
>>>> - 7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft
>>> 
>>> Now 7.3.1
>>> 
>>>> The draft says: "The Director must announce the publication of a
>>>> First Public Working Draft publication to other W3C groups and to
>>>> the public." In practice we do not announce publications to other
>>>> W3C groups other than via the home page (which is to the public).  I
>>>> have also not heard requests for a second type of announcement to
>>>> groups. Therefore, I propose to delete "to other W3C groups and"
>>> 
>>> Raised issue 7. Note that I disagree, and would like to have mail sent at least to chairs@
>> 
>> I stand corrected. Our transitions document already says for FPWD:
>> 
>> "In order to facilitate peer review, once the document has been published, the Chair sends a transition announcement to chairs@w3.org and the group's public mailing list."
>> 
>> Since it's in the transitions documentation, can we remove it from the process document?
> 
> IMHO, No. It should be in the process, so that it doesn't stop happening e.g. because someone just decides that it isn't necessary since the news is already on the home page or something.

Appearance in the process document will have no practical impact on publications since people don't consult the process document 
when publishing. 

While I don't think it's necessary (and adds to the length of the process document) I don't object to having it there as the justification for the existing pubrules requirement.

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 19:07:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC