Clarifying timing etc.

Dear all,

It's been an unusual week that I know has left many people confused so I 
will do my best to explain - and hope I don't confuse any further.

Is/was there a deadline or not?

Yes and no!

WGs are expected to publish documents every three months or so (we call 
it the heartbeat). That's what W3M (W3C management) looks at and, seeing 
little in the way of publication from this WG, has raised questions.

Therefore, 'getting a FPWD of the BP doc out by end Jan' was a promise I 
made to W3M as a sign that we're doing OK.

Bernadette, Caroline and Newton worked extremely hard to meet that 
deadline, prompting the most detailed discussion we've had to date about 
specific issues. Last week, under pressure and with obvious hesitation 
from several WG members, the WG resolved to publish what we had as an 
FPWD [1]

My task, as team contact, was to get it ready for publication. I looked 
for English that I could tidy up as a native speaker and general 
editorial issues. As I worked through the doc I found a lot of 
inconsistencies in:

- where RFC 2119 keywords had been used;
- the level of detail and prescriptive nature in the implementation 
suggestions;
- the way tests had been written;
- the type of references made and how they were made.

I reported this to the WG [2], Bernadette, Newton and Carol worked on it 
some more [3].

How far does 'native speaker/team contact cleaning up' go? That's not 
defined anywhere but I felt that I had made so many changes that I 
really couldn't just call it cleaning up.

And then, perhaps acting a hurry, I summarily removed the data 
preservation BPs, expecting a version of them, to go back in but only 
after more discussion [4].

Am I allowed to do this?

Not really, no. Being Team Contact doesn't give me any special powers. 
My role is to help guide the chairs through the standardisation process.

So I have probably overstepped the mark a little, but in my defence...

https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-30#resolution_2

Bernadette told me after the meeting that there are improvements she'd 
like to make this week. Next Friday we'll assess the situation and see 
whether the WG feels ready to vote again on 13 Feb.

What about that deadline?

The important thing is to show W3M that progress is being made. And I 
believe the last few weeks prove conclusively that it is.

Is time unlimited?

No, we are under pressure to publish the FPWD as soon as we can - but it 
should be a doc that we have all read and that we are confident in.

After all, as I said today: first impressions last.

Personally, I'm done with edits to this doc for now and don't plan to 
make any more before next week.

HTH

Phil.


[1] https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23#resolution_4
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0299.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0305.html
[4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0313.html



-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Friday, 30 January 2015 16:17:34 UTC