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

Re: Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:53:50 -0700
Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <E2871535-FD8C-4D84-9E9F-F3080D99523F@apple.com>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>

On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:50 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:

> One reason that it may not make sense to have a name for "worthy of wide review" is that (at least within the CSS WG) sections of a document mature at different rates. So that parts of the document may be ready for "wide review" even though all of the document may not be so ready. The CSS WG has, in fact, chosen to split documents when a basic core of content is mature and to remove the less mature pieces for a subsequent version.  The intent was that the Status Section of each draft indicate what were the major changes since a prior draft and what should be reviewed. The document could, therefore, say the whole document should be reviewed for consistency and completeness, but this is just another WD (prior to Last Call).
> 

OK, but then they are not ready to go to LCCR, are they, which (in the new process) asks that the whole document has had "wide review".  I'm saying that it's good to have a 'stamp' on a whole document that you're intending to take to LCCR, and are asking for the 'wide review' on.  Not piecemeal review, mind you, a review of a consistent document…

> Steve Z
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 6:21 PM
> To: Charles McCathie Nevile
> Cc: Ian Jacobs; Jeff Jaffe; public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Name of Last Call Candidate Recommendation Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal
> 
> I think a name will help both inside the group, and outside.  Groups are required to heartbeat WDs, and it's notable when they say, by way of a label "this one is different, we are done and need wide review".
> 
> The process need only suggest a name, since there are no formal process actions tied to it.  But the newsletters can say WG xxx has produced an Ultimate Review of Buttons and Bows, and so on.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>> 
>> "Please review, because we're about to go into LCCR" seems OK to me. Why have a formal "almost LCCR" stage name?
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 16:54:19 UTC

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