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

Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

From: David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 15:29:36 -0700
Cc: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <548628E9-D6F2-4123-B0EF-816E990F0191@apple.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>

On Oct 3, 2014, at 14:51 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> .  That aspect of the change was a step backwards.
> Do you think this problem should be addressed in the next version of the  process document or in W3C tooling /  best practices documentation / chair training / whatever?

Tooling.  We need to make better tools available.

> 
> FWIW I prefer the latter, especially since the previous incarnation of the AB spent a LOT of time on this topic but still made this "step backwards."  I'm open to concrete proposals to fix in in the PD if anyone has ideas that don't involve taking a step backwards on agility/flexibility/understandability of the PD.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David (Standards) Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 2:37 PM
> To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
> Cc: Wayne Carr; Nigel Megitt; Arthur Barstow; public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties
> 
> 
> On Oct 2, 2014, at 3:19 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 
>> 01.10.2014, 21:22, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>:
>>> 
>>> There could be a Call for Review public mail list.  Reviews don't 
>>> happen there (they happen where the post points people to send 
>>> comments), but notifications do happen there.  So people who don't 
>>> want to follow the WG list but do want to know when there are 
>>> significant drafts from any WG to review could subscribe to the 
>>> notifications list.  This would allow a WG to ask for review of a 
>>> particular section or to say they think some section is finished.
>> 
>> That would be a very useful list to have and a helpful way to use it. I believe that is what timeless keeps asking for.
> 
> I would really really like a page (frame) that lists documents that are currently in wide public review, candidates for transitions, FPWDs and so on.   a 'look at me' list with deadlines.
> 
> I check 'my questionnaires' every week to make sure I have not missed something.  But polls, documents, doodles, and so on, that don't appear there can easily get lost in my inbox, which I struggle to keep under control.
> 
> If that frame could be on a page that lists my questionnaies, my issues/actions, my assigned bugs, even better.
> 
> If that page could also contain links to the groups I am a member of (a page that gets me into those groups, their wikis, mail archives, document status pages and so on), life gets even better.
> 
> And then I dream of a consolidated calendar of all those groups, and...well, ok, it all comes crashing down.  Apparently calendaring is hard.
> 
>> 
>>> If that became popular, having done notifications several times there 
>>> could be some evidence of having sought wide review.
>> 
>> Except the process doesn't say "you have asked for wide review", it says you can show evidence that you *got* it.
> 
> Note that evidence that you sent it out might be needed if very few people replied.
> 
> 
> 
> The general point here (and I made it during the revision) was that the LCWD had the upside that it was a very visible "look at me!" call, and was published and so on.  By removing the roadblock of requiring it (good) we also removed the visibility it offered, and moved getting that visibility from being partially automated (any decent WG augmented it by reaching out specifically) to being completely manual.  That aspect of the change was a step backwards.
> 
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 22:30:12 UTC

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