Re: XBL comments

Hi All,

On Dec 6, 2006, at 2:24 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> Yeah, I see your point. Dean or Art, is there a more elegant way we  
> can
> do this?

Well that may depend on the semantics of "elegant" or perhaps the  
semantics of "semantics" if I correctly understand one of the more  
recent comments :-).

More seriously though, I support doing the least amount of  
administrative overhead that satisfies the process requirements  
listed below (i.e. #1-#3) and I agree with Ian we don't want to do  
anything that is anti-social. I believe Dean accurately represented  
the process requirements and recommend we follow them and not pattern  
our effort after some other Working Group that may not have followed  
these [IMHO generally benign] requirements.

In practice e.g. for a simply typographical error, it would be "make  
work" to require the extra round-trip implied in requirement #3 below.

OTOH, I suspect that for more substantial comments, it would  
facilitate the CEO and/or Director's review (and thus expedite the  
totality of the process) if a link to the Commentor's acknowledgment  
(i.e. #3 below) were readily available in the disposition of comments  
document.

Dean has a lot more experience with this than me so I await his  
recommendation.

Regards,

Art Barstow
---


> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> Really? That's not the impression I got from Dean at our last F2F
> (quote
>> from minutes, see [1]):
>>
>> DJ: There aren't really any clear requirements. However, we've been
>> asked to do the following:
>> DJ: 1. Link to the original comment message
>> DJ: 2. Link to the official WG response message (or messages)
>> DJ: 3. Link to the acknowledgment from the commenter (that they are
>> happy/unhappy with the response)
>
> It's quite possible that the W3C is requesting things that aren't part
> of
> the W3C's process; W3C process violations are quite common and do not
> seem
> to ever be addressed (see, e.g., SVG Tiny 1.2). I am attempting to
> follow
> W3C process while being polite to reviewers; repeatedly telling
> reviewers
> that they must reply within two weeks is not polite and is not  
> required
> by
> the W3C process document. (I've been on the receiving end of "please
> reply
> within two weeks", and it seems very rude, especially when the working
> group itself takes months to reply.)
>
>
>> We spent a lot of time reviewing all the XBL2 comments at the last
> f2f,
>> and it would be a great help to us if you would simply ask: "Could  
>> you
>
>> please let us know if the above satisfies your comments?"
>
> I really don't understand how it helps anyone, especially not the
> reviewers. Could you elaborate?
>
>
>> Even if it's not the W3C way, it seems to be the WAF way (see also  
>> all
>
>> the emails Dean sent out to people on the 26/10/2006 regarding XBL
>> feedback).
>
> I didn't really see the point in those e-mails. They seemed, to me, to
> be
> somewhat rude (no offense intended to Dean, who I am sure meant  
> them in
> the best possible way).
>
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                ) 
> \._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _ 
> \  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'-- 
> (,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 19:52:31 UTC