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

Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 21:52:21 +0100
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w4d3xjbfy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 02:11:23 +0100, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

...

>  * 7.2.2 Wide review. I think the second paragraph, while useful,
>  should live outside the process in a resource called "Considerations
>  when evaluating wide review of a Recommendation Track Document" or  
> something less pompous.

I disagree. I think it is important to give some idea of what is required,  
given there are no fixed rules that can be followed. I also think it is  
useful to have this in the process document rather than leaving it outside.

>  In the first paragraph of that section, the last two sentences have
>  some duplication. Here's a proposed merging:
>
>   "Before approving transitions, the Director will consider how well
>   the group communicated the review opportunity, who actually reviewed
>   the document and provided comments &mdash; especially groups
>   identified as dependencies in the charter, and how the group
>   responded to reviews."

I tweaked the paragraph, so those sentences are now

[[[
Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has actually  
reviewed the document and provided comments, the record of requests to and  
responses from reviewers, especially groups identified as dependencies in  
the charter, and seek evidence of clear communication to the general  
public about appropriate times and which content to review.
]]]

>  * 7.2.2. "four weeks, ." weird punctuation.

fixed

>  * 7.4: "The Director must inform the Advisory Committee and group
>    Chairs when a technical report has been refused permission to
>    advance in maturity level and returned to a Working Group for
>    further work."
>
>    Elsewhere you refer to WG requests. I would propose that the
>    language here say that the Director has declined the request.
>    I think that the use of such language would clarify the protocol.
>    So here:
>
>    "The Director must inform the Advisory Committee and group Chairs
>    when he declines a request to advance in maturity level and
>    returns it to a Working Group for further work."
>
>    There are other instances of "permission" in the document. My proposal
>    is that the Group issues the request and the Director either approves
>    or declines the request.

done

>  * 7.4.1.a: "A working group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C
>    Technical Reports page every 6 months, or sooner when there have
>    been significant changes to the document that would benefit from
>    review from beyond the Working Group."
>
>    I suggest putting that at the beginning of the next section instead,
>    which is about revising WDs.

done

>  * 7.4.5: " W3C Recommendation normally retains its status forever."
>    However in 7.5 you write: " A technical report may remain a Working
>    Group Note indefinitely". I like the use of "indefinitely" and
>    recommend that formulatino in 7.4.5.

done (although I would probably prefer "happily ever after" if I could  
choose anything :) ).

>  * There is some inconsistent uppercase usage for Director, Working  
> Group,
>    Working Draft.

  Not any more, I believe.

Thanks for the comments...

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 17:52:50 UTC

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