Re: [web audio] I18N self-review? [I18N-ACTION-756]

Hi Addison

On 24-Sep-18 16:30, Phillips, Addison wrote:
>
> Hello webaudio,
>
> The Internationalization (I18N) Working Group has tasked [1] me with 
> writing to you about your recent CR transition of the Web Audio API 
> document [2]. Congratulations on this important milestone.
>
> As near as I can tell, your WG did not request a review from the I18N WG.
>
We did, and got one, but you can certainly be forgiven for forgetting 
about it.

I discussed it with you face to face at TPAC 2016 (yes, we really have 
been "almost ready for CR" for two years now).

The transition request was eventually sent on 6 September 2018 (after 
the second TAG review and the Privacy review had concluded). Transition 
requests have a built-in one week delay to allow other chairs to 
indicate that they are not done reviewing a document, or have 
unaddressed concerns.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2018JulSep/0115.html

I'm just checking that you are subscribed to chairs and see the 
transition request emails? Nowadays the email to chairs is first 
developed on a transitions GitHub repo.
https://github.com/w3c/transitions

In this case the relevant issue was
https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/89
Are you tracking that repo? It might be easier, especially for followup, 
than the chairs mailing list.

> If for some reason we missed your request or otherwise were 
> unresponsive, please let me know.
>
No, you were fully responsive (back in 2016).
>
> Assuming otherwise and based on the transition announcement, I have 
> added your document to our review radar [3].
>
Thanks. Any further review will of course be welcome.
>
> “Horizontal” review of specifications is one way that the W3C helps 
> ensure universal access. While your specification doesn’t appear to 
> have many areas for potential gaps, it puts a lot of pressure on our 
> working group when we don’t have sufficient time to perform a 
> review—and it can be disruptive if we eventually discover issues that 
> need to be addressed.
>
Sure, although in this case the two years since we alerted you was 
probably sufficient, especially given the assurances from you at TPAC 
2016 that our API did not raise I18n concerns.
>
> To that end, could you let us know:
>
> 1.Did you have a chance to perform a self-review or did you otherwise 
> consider requesting an I18N WG review?
>
We requested one and, having described the scope and intent of the API, 
were told by you that it was not needed for this sort of API that does 
not have human-readable text strings, etc.
>
> 2.Were you aware of horizontal reviews as part of the process? If not, 
> how can we better make you aware or make it easier to work with us?
>
We were fully aware, and as the transition request makes clear we had a 
fair bit of horizontal review - not one but two TAG reviews, 
accessibility discussions, a very full privacy and security review, as 
well as your own.

Sorry that it took us so long to finally request CR transition that you 
had forgotten about us!

-- 
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus
Technical Director @ W3C
W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media