Re: Fw: ACTION-335: Fw: Comments on "WICD Full/Mobile 1.0"

* Chris Lilley wrote:
>>>BH> I would rather learn such details from the mandatory public status
>>>BH> report. You don't happen to know where I can find it?

>Are you looking for a rationale, or a public status report? You asked
>for the latter. Searching the latter for the former would seem to be a
>bizarre undertaking. 

I apologize for not taking your unfamiliarity with the W3C Process and
your apparent failure to read the message I've referenced into account.
When I said "the mandatory public status report" I meant the mandatory
public status report as required by the W3C Process, not some informal
editor drafts. You can find the current operative W3C Process document
at <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/>.

We learn in section 6.2.7 (among other things, please refer to the
Process document for additional detail about the W3C Process):

  It is important that a Working Group keep the Membership and public
  informed of its activity and progress. To this end, each Working Group
  SHOULD publish in the W3C technical reports index a new draft of each
  active technical report at least once every three months.

My understanding is that since 19 December 2005 no documents have
been published as above, contrary to this SHOULD-level requirement.

  Each Working Group MUST publish a new draft of at least one of its
  active technical reports on the W3C technical reports index [PUB11]
  at least once every three months.

My understanding is that since 19 December 2005 no documents have
been published as above, contrary to this MUST-level requirement.

  Public progress reports are also important when a Working Group does
  not update a technical report within three months (for example, when
  the delay is due to a challenging technical issue) or when a Working
  Group has no active technical reports (for example, because it is
  developing a test suite).

  In exceptional cases, the Chair MAY ask the Director to be excused
  from this publication requirement. However, in this case, the Working
  Group MUST issue a public status report with rationale why a new draft
  has not been published.

It seems that a status report with rationale why a new draft has not
been published is currently missing, contrary to this MUST-level re-
quirement. As that would be rather surprising, I asked, repeatedly,
for a pointer to this status report -- without success so far. In

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Mar/0047

which I referenced prior to your requests for additional information
about the W3C Process, I already cited some of these sections. If you
feel this is still unclear, the Process document illustrates: 

  As an example, suppose a Working Group has one technical report as a
  deliverable, which it publishes as a Proposed Recommendation. Per the
  heartbeat requirement, the Working Group is required to publish a new
  draft of the Proposed Recommendation at least once every three months,
  even if it is only to revise the status of the Proposed Recommendation
  document (e.g., to provide an update on the status of the decision to
  advance). The heartbeat requirement stops when the document becomes a
  Recommendation (or a Working Group Note).

So, in this context, I found your statement

  I invite you to look at the volume of comments submitted,many by
  yourself, and reflect for a moment that responding to each one takes
  more or less time; thus the time between drafts is O(n) where n is
  the number of comments.

rather confusing, but your misconceptions are not that important to me,
I'd rather read a proper public status report by the CDF Working Group;
if you happen to find one, please let me know.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 21:45:24 UTC