W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Length of LC comment period [Was: Ready for LC on the various drafts I edit]

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 08:36:45 +0000 (UTC)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912050835310.5629@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > > 
> > > If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think the 
> > > spirit of the Recommendation track process suggests a shorter LC 
> > > period (say 2 months given the time of the year) and then (assuming 
> > > no substantive comments) moving the spec to Candidate.
> > 
> > I don't realistically think I'd have time to address the likely volume 
> > of comments in two months, since I am also dealing with HTML5's last 
> > call comments in the WHATWG and will likely be starting work on some 
> > more specifications in January.
> 
> I don't think we need to address all Last Call comments by the end of 
> the LC period - that's just the deadline to submit them.

I don't think there's any point having an arbitrary deadline if we're not 
going to do something after the deadline. My goal would be to go to CR the 
day after the deadline passes.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 08:37:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT