Re: Comments on "WICD Full/Mobile 1.0"


Comments below.

On behalf of the CDF WG

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> 
Sent by:
03/13/2006 12:30 PM

Kevin E Kelly/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Re: Comments on "WICD Full/Mobile 1.0"

* Kevin E Kelly wrote:
>We are planning to republish the four drafts as soon as we process the 
>last call comments.

It seems you are saying the Working Group won't be able to publish
updated drafts in accord with W3C's heartbeat requirement; I then
look forward to the Working Group's status report explaining why.

[KEK] I am confused by this comment.  As stated above, we plan to publish 
a set of 
working drafts with the LC comments changes in them so you and others can 
the results of the LC comment changes before we move to CR.  Is this not 
exactly what you are asking for?

>In reference to 
> we are 
>processing all the comments.  Are there specific comments that have not 
>been addressed?  If so please make us aware of them but each comment is 
>assigned to someone who should have followed up with you.  Does this 
>satisfy that comment?

I mean most of the comments posted to this list from March to December.
I've been looking for publicly archived responses that formally address
these comments and a statement from the various reviewers that they are
satisfied by the response. I checked the list archive but was unable to
find these responses. The last call announcement implies that the group
addressed those comments, I'm just wondering why they are not in the
list archive and would appreciate a pointer to the responses.

[KEK]  The CDF WG is working to respond to all comments including those 
previous working drafts.  Are there specific comments you have made that 
not been responded to?

>It would be more helpful if you placed a single comment in each email 
>instead of combining many comments into few emails.  It is becoming quite 

>confusing understanding what part of which of your emails still needs to 
>be responded to and which do not.  Perhaps you would consider all current 

>comments satisfied and then resubmit any missing comments when the new 
>drafts are published?  Please advise.

I'm not satisfied by any of the responses, and I don't really know why
most of the issues I've raised got rejected, as pointed out in my re-
sponse. If the Working Group thinks splitting the discussion into
multiple mails makes the discussion more readable, feel free to do so.
As I said, updated drafts would help a lot at this point.

[KEK]  The CDF WG is honestly confused by some of your comments and this 
email.  You state 
the WG is not responding to all your old comments to working drafts, but 
when we do 
respond to your comments you respond to our response emails stating you do 
not understand
why the WG is responding to your comments  (see 2 examples below):

[KEK] You state you don't like the responses from the WG that you get, 
but you seem to be providing comments to the group that are not comments 
you expect a response to. 
However, you do not tell the CDF WG until we spend time trying to respond 
to your emails.  And then you state  that we are not responding to all 
your comments. 
This is confusing.  Would it be possible when sending comments
to the CDF WG that you state which comments are not really comments you 
expect a response to but rather just opinions you wish to express on the 
CDF Public newsgroup? 
Also, if there are specific comments you beleive we have not responded to 
please let us know?

[KEK] The WG would like to understand and take into account everyone's 
point of view while
producing the CDR and WICD documents.  If you feel we have not understood 
your comments 
please advise the WG.

Björn Höhrmann · ·
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 ·
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:30:32 UTC