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

Re: AB transparency with the ProcDoc? Yeah, right [Was: Re: New draft of chapter 7 proposal]

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:43:18 +0500
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w3m3agmwy3oazb@chaals.local>
Hi Art, and all...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:46:32 +0500, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  
wrote:

> On 9/18/13 10:13 AM, ext Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> Summary of changes:
>> ISSUE-15: Reverted definitions of changes in specs to the current  
>> process content
>> ISSUE-26: Added a section on implementation experience (not quite the  
>> AB proposal, but meant to reflect it)
>> ISSUE-38: Moved the SHOULD document known implementations to a general  
>> requirement
>> ISSUE-40: I made Working Draft just one thing (no "heartbeats any  
>> more") and updated the SVG accordingly.
>
> In what Public forum were the "changes" for these Issues discussed? I  
> didn't find discussion for any of these on public-w3process except an  
> e-mail today on issue-38 and that just looks you talking to the AB.

Yeah, in some cases that is what happened.

For issue-38 there was a discussion here when I raised the issue, and then  
nothing happened until I proposed a way to close it in the draft.

> SZ indicated the Process Document was going to be discussed in Public  
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Jul/0014.html>.  
> Why isn't that being done and what is going to be done to fix this?

Because the AB and this group are still feeling their way toward a  
mechanism for doing it in practice. I hope we will soon be much better at  
it.

There are also cases where I make a judgement call that the information in  
the tracker effectively communicates what was said in discussion.

It would be helpful, of course, for others to drive discussion in this  
forum. A major motivation for explicitly following up the issue-38 here  
was because Larry had made the effort to do that - there are some issues  
where I raise and close them, and there actually isn't a lot of (or  
sometimes any) discussion in the meantime.

> Also, please provide the changeset(s) for each Issue.

I'll try to do that in the future, and to find the time to generate it for  
this draft too. Note that I try not to push more than once per day (and  
generally it happens less frequently), if you're trying to track backwards  
through the repository in the meantime. I've also got more disciplined  
about making one "logical" change for each commit.

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 03:43:52 UTC

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