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: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:35:34 -0600
Cc: public-w3process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
Message-Id: <700E1103-E9AB-49E0-A21D-6E786DA81C8F@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>

On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?"

Hi Art,

Did someone actually say that during the course of these discussions? I may have missed that comment. 

What I do know is that the request happened just before TPAC, when the staff is very busy. Since TPAC
I have been working on this tool and getting feedback on this public list. 


> 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

I can ask the Systems Team to add "First" to the status column.

> 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.)

Ok, I've split them.

> 
> 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.)

I'm not sure I understand the parenthetical comment.

> 
>> Anything else to add to the FAQ?
> 
> I recommend you move the FAQ to a wiki document the `community` can evolve over time.

Fantasai argued against this. I propose we leave in one place for now and see how it evolves.

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 16:35:36 UTC

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