W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > March 2012

Re: My concerns regarding publication

From: Elle <nethermind@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:48:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ=fddNjb1qmiD_w+4uq+s8E6MX_V-gT9DhzSwhRag_K1qUyBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: Richard Warren <richard.warren@userite.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
I agree that we should publish as soon as possible to receive feedback and
involve the entire community. It's that collective intelligence that will
make this document something universally useful to the community. As long
as Richard and Detlev's concerns are addressed with regards to expressing
our intent for Sections 4 and 5, I think we can get really valuable
contributions from publishing now.

So, if we are able to outline the kinds of editorial changes for the
Abstract and status of the document that we plan to make before publishing,
perhaps that will help Richard and Detlev have fewer concerns about
publishing earlier than they would initially like.  Are there examples of
previous drafts from WC3 working groups that demonstrate how to effectively
communicate the work in progress and its current state with clearly
outlined goals?


On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> I think the next sections will probably take us a few months to fill, and
> even then we may still feel it is too incomplete to publish. We need to
> draw a line somewhere and say it is good enough for what it is.
> What we currently have is a base structure for the document that seems to
> find agreement with the group. To take your analogy, we may not yet have
> the full box but a pretty decent idea of how it could look like, and that
> is a point in development that we should ask for feedback on.
> My suggestion would be to adapt the Abstract and Status of the Document
> sections to better reflect the current state of the document and what we
> are looking for from any interested reviewers (see comments #79 and #80).
> This will help people decide if they want to spend time reviewing this
> early draft or rather wait for a more complete one to review.
> On a more clerical note: we are actually required by the W3C Process to
> publish drafts every three months (so called "heart-beat requirement").
> This requirement is there for a reason, it is usually good for groups to
> publish early and frequently to show the world where they are.
> All in all there are several reasons for publishing but few against it
> provided that the current state of the document is made very clear to the
> readers. Eric and I will take a stab at that clarification...
> Best,
>  Shadi
> On 15.3.2012 22:41, RichardWarren wrote:
>> Hi Alistair and Samuel et al,
>> I am not suggesting that we “cobble something together”. I am asking that
>> we merely indicate the way that we expect things to go in the empty
>> sections. I feel that it is unfair to ask people to study and contribute
>> feedback when there is such important information missing.
>> I agree with both of you that feedback is useful and, as Samuel says, it
>> is good to get some ideas from outside the box. But we do not yet have a
>> box! we are missing at least two sides!
>> So far we have written a good introduction plus methodology for defining
>> scope and identifying target areas to evaluate. I have no objection to
>> publishing that for discussion and feedback as a separate entity if you
>> really want to. But we do not have a “Draft Evaluation Procedure” which is
>> what (I think) Shadi wants to publish.
>> Cheers
>> Richard
>> From: Alistair Garrison
>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:29 PM
>> To: Samuel Sirois ; Eval TF
>> Subject: Re: My concerns regarding publication
>> Hi All,
>> I agree with Samuel - early feedback is good feedback...  I don't share
>> the concerns about publishing...
>> If you clearly say that this is an early release in order to gather as
>> much early feedback as possible, in my experience, people will almost
>> certainly react positively.
>> I would not, however, recommend that we start hurriedly cobbling together
>> content just to have some flesh in the last two sections - people will
>> surely see that's what has been done, and it might reflect badly on the
>> whole document.
>> All the best
>> Alistair
>> On 15 Mar 2012, at 21:11, Samuel Sirois wrote:
>>   On 2012-03-15 15:06, Userite wrote:
>>     Hi All,
>>     Sorry if I appear awkward but following our recent conference I am
>> even more worried about publishing this draft than I was before the
>> conference.
>>   Please, do not be sorry, real democracy is a great thing.
>>     I believe that we have a good document as far as it goes (down to
>> Step 3 of section 3) However after that there is nothing. No indication of
>> what sort of guidance we will provide, how we expect evaluators to use and
>> apply WCAG nor, crucially, on how we think we might report the evaluation
>> findings. These areas are of major importance and therefore deserve at
>> least some indication of where we are going, or at least thinking of going.
>> Even amongst ourselves we are asking questions about things like
>> conformance, how much more would the public be asking if all they have
>> available is the current document?
>>   In my point of view, I think this is a good thing because we might
>> receive comments that are really out of the box... since the box is opened
>> on each side! ;)
>>     I am not suggesting that we provide the same level of detail yet in
>> steps 4 and 5 etc. as we have in the earlier parts. But we should be able
>> to outline our approach in a couple of weeks so that the public get a more
>> complete draft and we are clearer about the overall process we are
>> developing.
>>     So my request is to hold off publication for a couple more weeks so
>> that we can put some more flesh on the document.
>>   I would like to read more on this. What are the cons of publishing
>> right away?
>>   Here are some pros that I see to early publication, coming from my
>> development experience:
>>   It allows the document to progress faster;
>>   It enables the community to define what the document will become (so
>> that the document will be of better use to the community, being closer to
>> what the community really wants out of that kind of methodology);
>>   You see those pros everywhere in the Free and Open Source Software
>> community and Agile community. If you wish to read more on the subject, The
>> Cathedral and the Bazaar is a must read (http://www.catb.org/~esr/**
>> writings/cathedral-bazaar/<http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/>).
>> Are those applicable to our methodology development? I let Eval TF express
>> it's opinion on that one.
>>   In my opinion, early feedback is good feedback: less work for us,
>> better work for the community! ;)
>>   My two cents.
>>   Best regards to all,
>>   Samuel
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/**shadi/<http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/>
> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
and endless sea.
- Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 01:49:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:20 UTC