Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:49:30 +0400, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>  
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile
> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:21:20 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
>> wrote:
>>> Since when did we start putting the onus on the reviewer that her or
>>> his feedback is captured?
>>
>> Before I started working with W3C in the mid 90's (although as noted  
>> below it is part of a set of checks and balances).

> Given the scarcity of quality review that seems bad.

I think what's bad is that it is difficult to get quality review, good  
editors, and excellent contributions from the working group. But I don't  
see an obvious fix for that. Indeed, the point of soliciting review is  
because it seems unlikely that even the best set of contributors working  
together will always be right.

>> Indeed. And we expect the editor to do that to the best of their  
>> ability. In the past, where editors were actually editing a document
>> that was produced more directly by the whole Working Group, the group
>> itself also assumed some of that function.
>>
>> But editors are not infallible, and the new model Working Group tends  
>> to be less hands-on about directing the editor. I believe largely at
>> the perceived behest of a handful of high-profile editors such as
>> yourself.
>>
>> So in practice the necessity for a commenter to check that their  
>> comment was understood correctly and correctly acted on has become a
>> little more prominent in the overall balance of how things are done.
>
> Sad to learn this is how WebApps tries to run things. Both as editor
> and reviewer I find this unacceptable.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. This isn't how Webapps tries to  
run things, nor any kind of formal policy. It is a reflection on the  
imperfect world we live in.

It's unclear what you think we should be doing differently.

If you believe we can simply insist that editors do a perfect job of  
capturing feedback and responding to it correctly, we will have to  
disagree.

If you think that reviewers should expect the editor and the Working Group  
to make a serious good faith effort to understand and respond correctly to  
a review comment we are in violent agreement.

As an editor and a chair, I find it unfortunate when a reviewer doesn't  
follow up their comment to ensure that it was clear and that the Working  
Group acted on it in a satisfactory way, because while I would like to  
trust that this is the case I am more confident after checking. But given  
the absence of an enforcement mechanism, that's just another of the  
unfortunate things that happens (and in general I would prefer that than a  
too-strict enforcement mechanism).

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 18:32:01 UTC