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: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:34:59 +0300
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <56901415644499@webcorp02f.yandex-team.ru>
+1

10.11.2014, 20:33, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>:
> Since this can evolve as we get experience, seems this is good enough to start up now.
>
> On 2014-11-10 08:35, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>
>> 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

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 18:35:28 UTC

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