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

RE: w3process-ISSUE-148 (Consider Liaisons): Consider Liaison when deciding who should review a REC Track document [Process Document]

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 04:39:39 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d39ec7ccb9494daa8144b6f713d0edfe@BN1PR02MB183.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Comment inline:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@mac.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:32 PM
> To: Revising W3C Process Community Group
> Subject: Re: w3process-ISSUE-148 (Consider Liaisons): Consider Liaison when
> deciding who should review a REC Track document [Process Document]
> 
> W3C liaison handling is, at best, very weak.  I have seen formal, careful, liaisons,
> from other groups, replied to with quite casual emails. If we want to use liaisons
> and the power they offer, we need to get better at writing and responding to
> them, alas.
[SZ] Exactly why Liaisons should be called out in the Wide Review section.
> 
> 
> > On Nov 16, 2014, at 22:18 , Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue
> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > w3process-ISSUE-148 (Consider Liaisons): Consider Liaison when deciding who
> should review a REC Track document [Process Document]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/148
> >
> > Raised by: Steve Zilles
> > On product: Process Document
> >
> > It was noted[1] that W3C keeps a list of Liaisons[2] with organizations
> requesting liaisons with W3C groups and/or activities.
> > [1]
> > [2]
> >
> > The text of the first paragraph of Section 7.2.3.1 Wide Review currently reads:
> >
> > "The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the W3C
> Process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of stakeholders of the
> Web community, including the general public, have had adequate notice of the
> progress of the Working Group and thereby an opportunity to comment on the
> specification. Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has
> been explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who
> has provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from
> reviewers, especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter, and seek
> evidence of clear communication to the general public about appropriate times
> and which content to review."
> >
> > To include Liaisons in the final sentence, it is suggested that the phrase,
> "especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter," be changed to,
> "especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter or identified as <a
> href="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison.html">liaisons</a>,"
> >
> > The "href" refers to the Liaison page that tracks liaison requests made to the
> W3C.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Dave Singer
> 
> singer@mac.com
> 
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 04:40:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:13 UTC