W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2009

Re: TAG Pending Review Action Items

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:44:38 -0400
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <0F200816-055D-4A9E-92FA-A6DDD6DF8817@creativecommons.org>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
This seems almost right, but I would suggest a small modification: for  
each action nominated for closure, provide a BRIEF rationale for  
belief that review is complete (e.g. "recent discussion on www-tag  
constitutes review" or "I looked and it looks done to me" or "no one  
remembers what this was about" or "moot").

The reason is that I want to be able to go to any closed action in  
tracker and find out why it got closed. If the action is merely a  
member of a chair-closed-actions list that's not so helpful. And  
personally I'd rather not have my pending-review actions be closed  
without review from at least one other person.

If anyone can nominate an action for closure that may reduce the brief- 
rationale-writing load on the chair. The procedure would then be: (1)  
send request-to-close email with rationale, (2) let two days pass, (3)  
take silence at TAG meeting (perhaps for an entire batch) as assent to  
close.

Jonathan

On Mar 10, 2009, at 8:25 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Often on teleconferences we attempt to close by "voice vote"  action  
> items
> that are marked PENDING REVIEW, I.e. those that the person responsible
> believes are completed.  I was preparing to do the same on Thursday's
> call, but when I pulled up the list at [1] it seemed unusually  
> long.  To
> avoid spending a lot of time on the call, I'm suggesting an  
> alternative
> procedure for this week:  please look at the list now.  If there are  
> any
> that you don't give me as chair permission to close or not at my
> discretion, then let me know and we'll either resolve via email or  
> discuss
> just those on Thursday.  So, silence is assent to my doing what I  
> think
> best, which in most cases will be to close.
>
> As a placeholder, I'll put an item on the agenda referencing this  
> note,
> but I'm hoping to be able to pass by it without spending significant  
> time.
>
>
> A somewhat rough text version of the list is attached.
>
> Noah
>
> [1]  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
> Technical Architecture Group Issue Tracking
>
>
>   Generated by [21]Tracker
>   - Version 1.10
>
>     [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/
>
> Pending review Actions
>
>   There are 11 pending review actions.
>
>   [_] [25]ACTION-165[26] (edit) pending review [27]Formulate erratum  
> text
> on versioning for the web architecture document John Kemp  2009-02-24
> [28]XMLVersioning-41
>
>   [_] [29]ACTION-176[30] (edit) pending review [31]send comments on  
> exi
> w.r.t. evaluation and efficiency Noah Mendelsohn 2009-03-02
> [32]binaryXML-30
>
>   [_] [33]ACTION-193[34] (edit) pending review [35]Try to draft a blog
> posting adapted from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url,  
> with help
> from TVR Dan Connolly 2009-02-25[36]webApplicationState-60
>
>   [_] [37]ACTION-200[38] (edit) pending review [39]Revise "Uniform  
> Access
> to Metadata" (needs title change) to add XRD use case
>   Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 [40]HttpRedirections-57
>
>   [_] [41]ACTION-205[42] (edit) pending review [43]Henry to begin
> responding to Marcos asking the question: Why does the spec not say "A
> conforming spec MUST recommend a hierarchical adressing schems that  
> can be
> used to address the individual resources within a widget resource from
> within a config doc, widget, or other constituent of the same widget  
> pkg."
> Henry S. Thompson 2009-01-15 [44]WebApps access control requirements
> review
>
>   [_] [45]ACTION-213[46] (edit) pending review [47]Convene weekly
> teleconference, take roll (regrets: Tim), review agenda Noah
>   Mendelsohn 2009-01-01 [48]ultimateQuestion-42
>
>   [_] [49]ACTION-215[50] (edit) pending review [51]Announce minutes  
> of 19
> Feb TAG teleconference Ashok Malhotra 2009-02-23  
> [52]ultimateQuestion-42
>
>   [_] [53]ACTION-217[54] (edit) pending review [55]Raise moving the
> registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24
> [56]HttpRedirections-57
>
>   [_] [57]ACTION-221[58] (edit) pending review [59]Work with Dave  
> Orchard
> to close up the formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two
> weeks Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 [60]XMLVersioning-41
>
>   [_] [61]ACTION-227[62] (edit) pending review [63]Summarize TAG  
> work on
> metadata, with Larry Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24
>
>   [_] [64]ACTION-230[65] (edit) pending review [66]Get Noah to look at
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/TPAC2009/ Dan Connolly
>   2009-03-09
>
>
> References:
>
>     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=status
>     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=owner
>     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=due
>     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165
>     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165/edit
>     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165
>     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41
>     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176
>     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176/edit
>     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176
>     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/30
>     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193
>     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193/edit
>     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193
>     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60
>     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200
>     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200/edit
>     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200
>     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205
>     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205/edit
>     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205
>     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
>     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213
>     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213/edit
>     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213
>     [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/42
>     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215
>     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215/edit
>     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215
>     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/42
>     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217
>     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217/edit
>     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217
>     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221
>     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221/edit
>     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221
>     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41
>     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227
>     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227/edit
>     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227
>     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230
>     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230/edit
>     [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:45:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT