W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

Re: [CSS21] response to issue 15b

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:02:02 +0100
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <405c616e.371145018@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Tantek Çelik wrote:
>The working group has no obligation to report even the existence of
>responses/objections made after the last call review deadline.

>It is relevant in that the only objections the working group must respond to
>are those made before the last call deadline.  New objections, even if they
>are made in the middle of some other thread, do not require a response.

>And the working group replied and explained away your objections, which is
>sufficient.

<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/>:

[...]
    3.3.2 Recording and Reporting Formal Objections

   When individual registers a formal objection to a decision, the
   individual SHOULD cite technical arguments and propose changes that
   would remove the objection; these proposals MAY be vague or
   incomplete. When an objection concerning a document on the
   Recommendation Track or the Process Document includes such
   information, the Chair MUST report it to the Director in the next
   request to advance the document (e.g., in the request to the
   Director to advance a technical report to Candidate Recommendation).
[...]
  7.2 General Requirements for Advancement

   For a Call for Implementations up to and including publication as a
   Recommendation, the Working Group MUST:
[...]
    6. Formally address all issues raised about the document since
       the previous step.
[...]
    7. Report any formal objections.

   The following information is important to the decision to advance a
   technical report and therefore MUST be publicly available:
[...]
     * Responses that formally address issues raised by reviewers;
     * Any formal objections.
[...]
  7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities

   A document receives review from the moment it is first published.
   Starting with the First Public Working Draft until the start of a
   Proposed Recommendation review, a Working Group MUST formally
   address /any/ substantive review comment about a technical report
   and SHOULD do so in a timely manner.
[...]
   The Working Group MUST be able to show evidence of having attempted
   to respond to and satisfy reviewers. Reviewers MAY register a formal
   objection any time they are dissatisfied with how a Working Group has
   handled an issue.
[...]
   Ordinarily, reviewers SHOULD NOT raise substantive technical issues
   about a technical report after the end of a Last Call review period.
   However, this does occur, and as stated above, a Working Group's
   requirement to formally address those issues extends until the end of
   a Proposed Recommendation review period.
[...]
  A reviewer MAY register a formal objection.
[...]
   When a Working Group receives a substantive issue after the end of
   Proposed Recommendation review period, the Working Group MUST respond
   to the reviewer but MAY decline to formally address the issue.
[...]
    7.4.3 Call for Implementations
[...]
   Entrance criteria: The Director calls for implementation when
   satisfied that the Working Group has fulfilled the general
   requirements for advancement.
[...]
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 20:02:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT