W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

Upcoming WGLC for documents

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:08:10 -0700
To: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BED351DA.3DB69%fluffy@cisco.com>


Very soon I expect to working group last call BIND, QUOTA, and REDIRECT. I
realize there have been previous WGLC but I suspect that many documents and
the thinking around them have evolved. It is very difficult to go back
through the lists and figure out all the issuers that were ever open and
what closed. I know some people may feel like this is extra work, but I
think it will be valuable to get a fresh reread of the documents and a
complete set of the open issues.

I'm going to try and keep track of what the issues are and drive them all to
consensus. This can be pretty confusing at times so there are some things
that could really help me.

Try to separate the comments into two groups of protocol issues and document
issues. I think of protocol issues being something where the the document is
incorrectly describing how the protocol actually works, or there is a
problem with how the protocol works, or the document does not adequately
specify how the protocol works. The second group are document issues like
the explanation is hard to understand and may result in the incorrect
implementations, a BNF does not compile or some XML does not validate
against the schema, or there is a formatting problem or typo.

It would also be nice to split the issues into big, small, and trivial. I
think of big as things that are major issues and going to take time on the
list to resolve. Trivial and nits and typos and stuff that is important to
fix but really does not need any thought or discussion. Small is everything
else :-)

Comments along the lines this whole document is garbage are really hard to
do anything with at this point in time. So instead of making these, either
provide specific things that need fixing (ideally with proposed fixes), or
just argue that the document should not be moved forward to an RFC. I can
try to gage consensus about if we do or do not want to move a document
forward, or if we do or do not want to replace some text with some
alternative text. I can't do much with "this document is revolting".

Keep separable issues as separate problems instead of mixing several
semi-related things all into one large mess.

If you do a careful review of the document and don't see anything that needs
changing, drop a note to the list anyways just so we know that the document
did get some review.

Mostly I implore people to do there best to get all of their issues on the
list during the WGLC - if the time for the WGLC is too short let me know
sooner than later. It is really hard to complete documents if there is a
never ending supply of new issues.

Many thanks, 
Cullen
Received on Monday, 13 June 2005 22:09:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:08 GMT