W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Agenda, Wednesay, 23 May, WSC Call

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:08:50 +0200
To: Bruno von Niman <ANEC_W3CRep_Bruno@vonniman.com>
Cc: 'Mary Ellen Zurko' <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070523090850.GO23223@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-05-23 07:38:26 +0200, Bruno von Niman wrote:

> It's a good proposal by means of efficiency.

> However, organizations (like ANEC, the one I represent) may have
> prepared input and comments with the upcoming F2F in mind (we
> did, they are ready but under Member's approval). The idea was to
> submit them just in time for Dublin and be able to address and
> possibly present them and provide further explanations, if
> necessary, in the meeting. 

> As no submission deadline for the provision of comments on the
> current version has been communicated (and that should be done at
> least a few weeks before), I believe it would be procedurally
> wrong to release a new draft now, just before the Dublin F2F.

While I appreciate your concern, Bruno, I don't think that
publication of the current state of work as another Working Draft
would invalidate your comments. They would continue to be welcome
and useful input for the discussions at the face-to-face meeting.

As for the motivation for publishing now, the Note is (still) our
only active technical report.

Therefore, we have a process obligation to publish an updated
Working Draft at least every three months.  That's a MUST, in fact.

The last publication was on 2 March.  Deferring publication of an
updated Working Draft to a version that gets turned arout after the
meeting next week would very likely get us beyond the 3 month

Now, we could ask The Director to permit us to lapse this
obligation; however, I'd rather not need to do that.


> I suggest using a solid, updated editor's working group draft
> next week and releasing a new WG draft following next week's
> meeting instead. This is a firm standpoint.

See above.  The implication of your request is to not meet a Process
obligation.  I wouldn't want to do that lightly.

Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 09:08:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:16 UTC