Re: CfC: re-publish the webaudio and webmidi working drafts (Was: Next publications / last call / updating our estimate milestones)

Do we need to wait until we reach a consensus on the data race issue before
we publish a new working draft?

--
Ehsan
<http://ehsanakhgari.org/>


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Publications (in the W3C /TR public space) of our specs in overdue. This
> is a part of the W3C process which ensures that we do not go too long
> without soliciting formal input and review from the public. Ref:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule
>
> I would like us to republish both the Web Audio API and the Web Midi API
> specs within the next two weeks. I do not think the Web Audio Use Cases
> require a new publication.
>
> This e-mail should serve as a call for consensus, and barring any
> objection (e.g. if editors think now is a really bad time to issue new
> public WDs) we should consider consensus reached by the end of the week.
>
> More details about this, and upcoming milestones, in my message from late
> May - quoted below.
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier
>
> On 29 May 2013, at 16:39, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have recently looked at our specs, and noticed that we have mostly
> been working on "editor's draft" and not officially published a new version
> of either the web audio or web midi specs since December. A public update
> seems overdue - we do have a rough requirement to organise "heartbeat"
> publications every 3 months or so.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webaudio-20121213/
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webmidi-20121213/
> >
> > The group should take the resolution to re-publish soon. We will run a
> Call for Consensus to that effect in the next few weeks.
> >
> > I would also like to suggest that we look into whether this batch of
> publications should be what the W3C process calls "Last Call Working Draft".
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
> >
> > While the name suggests a very finished state, "Last Call" only means
> that the group considers that the specs are satisfying their relevant
> technical requirements, and that dependencies with other groups have been
> properly addressed. The fact that we still have work on refining some
> aspects of the specs and that we do have outstanding issues is not per se a
> barrier to considering Last Call.
> >
> > Indeed, I would argue that we should consider going to LC sooner than
> later, given that LC is the stage at which a lot of feedback is generally
> given to the group, it would be ineffective to spend too much effort on
> polishing the specs if some of the feedback is going to make us reconsider
> some of the specs' architecture. In other words, I consider the
> increasingly frequent mention that "feature X has been in the spec for a
> year and used by many" to be an indication that it is high time for us to
> move to LC.
> >
> > Can we have a collective thought about the question, and maybe put it on
> the agenda for one of our next teleconferences?
> >
> > On a side note - whatever our decision, we should review our milestones
> estimates for our publications.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/W3C_Audio_Publications_and_Milestones
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Olivier
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
> specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
>
>