Re: Announcing the Public ARIA Comment Tracker

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Janina Sajka wrote:
>
> Still it seems I'm missing something in what you write. It seems to me 
> you are most concerned that we are doing wrong, and especially that we 
> are doing you wrong somehow. Is there something else you need to come 
> forth with? What's the real problem here?

I assure you that I am not at all concerned that you are doing me wrong in 
any way. I have the utmost confidence that you are acting in good faith 
and have no doubt that you intend to and will in fact respond to all 
comments, including mine.


> > My point was just that if someone sends a comment on a spec, 
> > regardless of when the comment is sent, the working group is required 
> > to respond to the comment before advancing the step to the next stage. 
> > Naturally, if the spec were to be in the "REC" stage, and the working 
> > group didn't think the comment was important, one option would be to 
> > simply not do anything. However, in general, whenever a document 
> > advances along the REC track, the working group is required to respond 
> > to all comments, whenever they were sent.
> 
> I see the following paragraph at:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html
> 
> " Reviewers SHOULD NOT send substantive technical reviews late on the 
> Recommendation track. Reviewers SHOULD NOT expect that a Working Group 
> will readily make substantive changes to a mature document. The more 
> evidence a Working Group can show of wide review, the less weight 
> substantive comments will carry when provided late on the Recommendation 
> Track. Worthy ideas SHOULD BE recorded even when not incorporated into a 
> mature document."
> 
> This paragraph, and others at the URI, read quite differently for me 
> from what I hear you asserting in this email exchange.

Section 3.3.3 reads, in part:

# The group's responsibility to respond to reviewers does not end once a 
# reasonable amount of time has elapsed.

This is all I was referring to.


> > But again, why would a working group _not_ want to respond to 
> > feedback? It seems surprising to me to see a working group actively 
> > announce that it intends to ignore substantial feedback and to instead 
> > work to a timetable regardless of the quality of the document under 
> > question.
>
> I don't see that at all. I don't see us saying we would ignore anything.

In this e-mail:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2009Jun/0017.html

...you say "Any comments recieved after 24 June will be addressed only as 
time allows", which is another way of saying that you might ignore 
comments sent after that date.

I don't understand why you would say that, given both the obvious desire 
to respond to any feedback a working group receives giving feedback on the 
group's draft, and the requirement given in the process to respond to all 
feedback. (Even if, as you point out, the later feedback is sent, the more 
likely it will be for the feedback to have received too late to actually 
have practical impact on the spec.)

However, this is to me merely an academic concern and not one that I 
believe in any way affects me. I am not personally worried about this.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 07:43:29 UTC