W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Updated [Was: UI Mockup [Was: CfC: create a public list to announce new publications; deadline Oct 15]]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 11:02:15 -0500
Message-ID: <545F9007.7070309@gmail.com>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
On 11/6/14 9:01 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:09 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the spirit of facilitating and increasing the likelihood of early and wide document reviews, a number of people in thread [1] voiced support for creating a Public list the Publications team would use to announce publications of FPWDs, LCWDs, 2014-preCRs and CRs. This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to create such a list and for the Publications team to use it when these types of documents are published.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by Oct 15.
>>>
>>> Assuming this CfC `passes`, a secondary issue is the name of the list. I am indifferent and offer these possibilities: public-{pubs,publications}; other suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
>> Hi Art,
>>
>> Here's a rudimentary UI to make it easier for chairs and team contacts to send these review notices:
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/11/getreview/

Nigel made his original post about the lack of let's say "guidelines" 
nearly six weeks ago. It would be good if we could get to a point where 
proposals (like this one) that don't get blocked by "OMG, will doing X 
risk loosing full member Y?" just get implemented (and iterated if/when 
necessary). As such, I recommend you put this service online toady and 
let's see what happens. I note too that since Nigel's request, 7 LCWDs 
have been published and thus not announced. I can't tell from a first 
level scan of TR/tr-date-drafts/ if any FPWDs or PD2014 pre-CRs have 
been published since  his posting.

[BTW, it's a bug that tr-date-drafts does not explicitly identify FPWDs 
and pre-CRs. And speaking of "pre-CR" that seems like a horrible name 
(and I acknowledge I could be the originator)].

Anyhow, as to this service, I would separate the WGs and IGs into 
separate lists (it's a bit funky to see all of the WGs in alpha order 
and the IGs appended at the end, although addressing this is certainly 
not a showstopper.)

I also recommend all XG Final Report publications get announced on this 
list. (I think this is especially important if the Consortium does 
indeed move to a work flow where the creation of a new WG is blocked 
until all of its REC track deliverables have some type of "spec" available.)

> Anything else to add to the FAQ?

I recommend you move the FAQ to a wiki document the `community` can 
evolve over time.

-Thanks, AB
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2014 16:02:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC