Re: Rules for "Public Comments"

On 08/19/2012 09:37 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Hi,
> In response to this message
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto-comments/2012Aug/0061.html
> I would like to describe what I (rightly or wrongly) believe are the rules such lists
> are operating under (in addition to the more general Internet rules like avoiding
> bad language, "ad hominem" attacks, and repeated marketing messages).
>
> Since public comments are likely to come from people outside of the WG, such
> comments may:
>
> - Be completely ignored by the WG
> - Not necessarily be aligned with the charter.  They may indeed even question the charter
> - Be sent at any time including after the final specification has been published

Anders,

Please read the W3C process document for clarification:

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#doc-reviews

Note that it is too late to ask for changes to the charter. The WG does 
not have to respond to any comment "out-of-scope" with the charter or 
asking for changes in the charter (which many of your comments have 
asked). There are many other standard and mailing lists for other kinds 
of cryptographic work, and you may always propose a new charter in 
another standards body, but please keep mail on this list both on topic 
and within the charter.

Also, the WG does not have to respond to any comment that is sent after 
the publication the Candidate Recommendation stage.

Comments clearly specify textual changes are generally appreciated. 
Vague comments, comments that include ad hominem attacks or "conspiracy 
theories", as well as comments that are unclear or off-topic may not be 
responded to. In general, we will warn anyone if their comments are 
consistently out-of-scope and off-topic as a matter of politeness, but 
we do not have to respond.

    cheers,
     harry




>
> Then of course the mileage of such comments will depend on the quality, clarity, and
> applicability but in that respect they don't differ much from regular WG messages.
>
> thanx,
> Anders
>

Received on Sunday, 19 August 2012 11:48:21 UTC