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: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 08:39:40 -0500
Message-Id: <0AD4F1E5-48CE-4E08-867A-F37CE915CC8B@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:29 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>> Anyway, my point was that even if I did have time to edit the  
>>> spec, it
>> would be a bad idea to accelerate the process. Reviewing a spec takes
>> time, finding problems takes time, and if we rush it we'll just  
>> screw it
>> up.
>
> Yes, I totally got that and completely agree. However, we have a
> number of people that have implemented this that could be pressed for
> feedback. Also, creating a test suite for Web Storage would allow us
> to find at least some spec bugs quickly which someone else could fix
> in the spec while you are busy with HTML5 and the other specs you are
> working on. Might help cut a month or two from your work schedule.
>
> Again, if you need some help with something, please ask. It doesn't
> need to be editing, it could be test suite or whatever.

Thanks for the feedback, and yes, all of Editors should ask for help  
and others should contribute to testing, responding to commment, etc.

Later today, I will start a CfC to publish a LCWD of these five docs.  
In that CfC, the proposed LC review period will be six months unless  
someone commits to completing the LC review earlier, including  
actively editing the spec, responding to comments, etc.

-Art Barstow
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 13:40:59 GMT

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