W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

Re: review process [was: identify...]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:56:23 -0600
Message-ID: <38ADCE17.77965687@w3.org>
To: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
CC: www-html@w3.org
Arjun Ray wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > Yours have to be recorded too.
> OK, a mild test.  A few weeks ago, I posted a question about the
> DOCTYPE declaration.  A lot of discussion followed.  One substantive
> followup, clearly addressing the HTML WG, was
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Jan/0226.html

Strictly speaking, that was not addressed to the HTML WG; the
message said:

	Subject: WEK: Comments on XHTML 1.1 5 Jan 2000 Draft (and related
	To: www-html@w3.org

while that spec says:

	Please send review comments before the
	review period ends to www-html-editor@w3.org. 
		-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xhtml11-20000105/

If you want to oblige the editor/WG to respond, please forward it
to www-html-editor.

> To which I added my 2 cents:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Jan/0241.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Jan/0246.html
> I can't (and don't) speak for Eliot Kimber, but let's agree that these
> posts have raised a bunch of (technical) issues that, in the best of
> worlds, would oblige a response.
>   (a) I don't expect a response.

Very well. That's certainly up to you.

You risk the editor/WG assuming that you're satisfied, but that's your

>   (b) If the response is, uh, unsatisfactory, *I* can't escalate.

You can make your dissatisfaction known (clarify/appeal, in
terms of http://www.w3.org/2000/02/procdia/), which obliges
the editor/WG to either continue to negotiate or note
your outstanding dissent at the next step.

>   (c) That is, without being a nuisance or jerk or both.

I don't see how saying "no, I'm not convinced" or "no, that
change doesn't address my request" is rude.

> And please don't say that there's an ombudsman or equivalent thereof
> to "represent" me or my interests,

Unfortunately, I cannot.

It's a possibility we've started to look into, however.

> and certainly not that you could or
> will fill that role.

I have been able to help some people get satisfaction, as have
other W3C team members. I don't make any guarantees; as you note:

>  (Why?  Because even though you have earned my
> respect many times over, you are still not entitled to my trust.)

... but I hope that doesn't cause everybody to give up in dispair
when they have difficulty getting a response from W3C editors/WGs.

In your message of Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:07:59 -0500 (EST) you write:

| Nope.  I (R in the diagram) can't even expect a response from E within
| a time frame suitable to *me*.

I'm not sure what you mean by that... you are owed a response before
the spec advances to the next stage. We haven't nailed down the
exact timing, but I would think that after two weeks to a month with
no response, you should feel free to send a reminder.

|  Even if I do get a response (for which
| I will be very grateful), it would suffice for the response to say
| that the WG voted unanimously not to act on my request and, in all
| courtesy, provide a rationale.  Game Over - please deposit $0.50...

Unanimously or otherwise, the WG has the option to decline your request,
yes. (If there's dissent in the WG, they have to 'escalate'
their own decision, though.)

| That's the good news.  The bad news is that I find out about this when
| it has gone to CR/PR/whatever.

Yes, in fact, the process as I drew it doesn't require them to notify
you if they choose to escalate. Courtesy suggests that they shouldn't
escalate before they've declined and you've appealed, but the
process as I see it doesn't require that.

The Director takes ultimate responsibility for all the
outstanding dissent when the spec goes to the next stage. That
used to work pretty smoothly when there were just a few W3C specs
in development. But badwidth thru the Director is getting overloaded
these days, and we're exploring ways to address that issue.

| Now, figure out why this is *normal* for me, but - somehow! - not for
| you.

I don't know what you mean by that. It works the same way for me.

|  (Hint: W#C processes are *closed*)

If you mean that W3C processes are not 100% open, then I must agree.
If you mean that W3C processes are 100% closed, then I disagree.

Dan Connolly
Received on Friday, 18 February 2000 17:57:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:53 UTC