W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

RE: Announcing FPWD pubs on p-review-announce [Was: Re: Comments on: W3C Process2015]

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 23:08:23 +0000
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>
CC: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN1PR0201MB0802A7FE7843AE784934DCDAAEFE0@BN1PR0201MB0802.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
The list exists,
Public-review-announce@w3.org
As noted it is little used, but this may be due to it being entirely invisible. It took me over an hour to find it and that I could only do by tracing back the message history when it was being developed. It is not at all visible on the W3 home page nor does it seem to appear under the "participation" links. It is not even mentioned under Specification Review (http://www.w3.org/participate/review#specs ). 

In the discussion that led to the list's creation, it was noted that it should not be totally automatic because the goal was for a Working Group to identify important drafts on which they wanted comments as distinct from drafts that are recording run of the mill decisions. I would also note that Process 2014 has far fewer Maturity level transitions for which Review makes sense. There is only Working Draft and Candidate Recommendation. There is no LC and CR is too late so that leaves only WD and, as noted above, with the exception of FPWD, subsequent WDs should not automatically be put on the list or list will be flooded. I agree that automatic is good, but perhaps making it the automation be part of the new WD publishing system, check a box and add a comment, would suffice in the automation area.

Steve Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> [mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:38 PM
> To: David Singer
> Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru; Arthur Barstow; Phillips, Addison; public-
> w3process@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Announcing FPWD pubs on p-review-announce [Was: Re:
> Comments on: W3C Process2015]
> 
> Agree, I would rather rely on automation than process.  Maybe the PD should
> just say that the team setup and maintain an automated mechanism to inform
> people of FPWD LCWD Transition requests/Transitions Exclusion
> opportunities
> 
> ... in  channel that doesn't have anything else on it.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:33 PM
> To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru; Arthur Barstow; Phillips, Addison; public-
> w3process@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Announcing FPWD pubs on p-review-announce [Was: Re:
> Comments on: W3C Process2015]
> 
> 
> > On Apr 6, 2015, at 15:24 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I believe there is one.  Trouble is few use it.
> 
> has to be automatic for all the obvious events
> 
> FPWD
> LCWD
> Transition requests/Transitions
> Exclusion opportunities
> Incoming liaisons, maybe
> 
> > Does the Process Doc have to mandate it as the mechanism to inform the
> world of the desire of a WG for wide review?
> 
> I would hate to mandate it.  But making it an easy tool is good.
> 
> If we do the auto stuff and allow chairs/team to add, then everyone would
> subscribe.
> 
> If all emails indicate the end-date of the request, we could even have a living
> page of current requests.
> 
> Document:  Title + URL
> Event:  (LCWD, FPWD, Review request…)
> End-date:  XX-XX-XX
> Source: (the WG)
> 
> …
> 
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:15 PM
> > To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
> > Cc: Arthur Barstow; Phillips, Addison; public-w3process@w3.org;
> > public-i18n-core@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Announcing FPWD pubs on p-review-announce [Was: Re:
> > Comments on: W3C Process2015]
> >
> > we desperately need a “this is a good time to review” list (‘life
> > events’ list, transitions, excl. opps, reviews opps., etc.)
> >
> >> On Apr 6, 2015, at 13:58 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll be forwarding this to the people who actually do things like
> >> this, in the hopes that helps. It would be really useful…
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> 06.04.2015, 22:55, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>:
> >>> On 4/6/15 4:04 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> >>>> I agree with Chaals that FPWD is a good time to start the review process.
> >>>
> >>> Me three and to facilitate the FPWD discovery part, several months
> >>> ago
> >>> ([ab]) I proposed the Pub Team `automagically` announce FPWD
> >>> publications on [p-r-a] but that has never been done :-(.
> >>>
> >>> -AB
> >>>
> >>> [ab]
> >>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0065.

> >>> h
> >>> tml> [p-r-a]
> >>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-announce/>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> >> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

> >>
> >
> > David Singer
> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >
> >
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 23:08:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 6 April 2015 23:08:59 UTC