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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:43:51 -0800
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <D080392B-44D7-4EC4-89EE-72E90A5226B9@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> 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.

The LC deadline is a deadline for commentors, not for the Working  
Group. While what you suggest is a good goal to shoot for, no matter  
how long you make the LC period you cannot preclude the possibility of  
100 Last Call comments coming in on the day before the deadline.

Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 08:44:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:21 UTC