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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:55:27 -0700
Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <412B37F2-B492-43E3-9880-CACFE4C9247C@apple.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>

On Oct 7, 2014, at 11:59 , Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/2/14 2:19 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>> 
>> On 2014-10-02 09:51, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>>> We can make the list public, but we can't make the necessary people subscribe to the list.
>> 
>> But, if we don't make the public list, the necessary people definitely won't subscribe :)
>> 
>> It seems a simple thing to do and if WG Chairs decided to use it, it could be a useful resource to know what was ready for review without wading through a ton of mail - if it caught on, it would be a useful way to solicit feedback. (that feedback would not be on the notification list - the notification list would indicate where the discussion was).
> 
> I think the above touches on a few issues related to workflow: 1) using a Public list to announce publications that trigger early review (f.ex. FPWD) and wide review (LCWD, 2014-preCR, CR); 2) who sends these announcements/notifications; and 3) how do groups manage their review requests.
> 
> Re #1, I think I'm already on record for supporting the Public notification list (besides such a list being useful for Chairs, it could also be useful for other stakeholders (implementers, testing/interop groups, app developers, etc.) as well as other Standards Setting Organizations.)

I think I am on record as preferring a standing page of open public reviews (I donít mind an email as well).

> 
> Re #2, For consistency reasons, it seems like these announcements should be done by the Publication team (not Chairs). (One potential wrinkle here is the Pub team knowing if a ProcDoc-2014 WD is actually a 2014-preCR version.)
> 
> Re #3, the current model seems to work ok: a) Chairs announce transitions and pubs on the chairs list; and b) the Chairs send RfCs to the appropriate group. (I suppose it wouldn't be harmful if the Chairs also Cc'ed the proposed notification list when they send out their RfCs but as you say, we don't want that list to be used for comments and I suspect there wouldn't be really complete adherence.)
> 
> -AB
> 
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 20:55:57 UTC

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