Re: Clarifying timing etc.

Here's my two cents,

I recommend that we freeze the publication once the editors feel we are
good to go (hopefully before Friday) and push it out.

We resolved to get our draft out January 23rd, it passed and I don't think
we need to get another vote we just need to get the document out the door.

If we get to the end of next week, vote yet again, and it is delayed once
again it will be really demoralizing.   Everyone is working so hard on this
I have been impressed by the efforts by all the editors and contributors.
I don't want this momentum breaking down because we need interest and
enthusiasm to be retained for the data quality and data usage vocabularies.

Bernadette, Caroline, and Newton, I will have more time this week to look
at BP 22...end .

Let's get this out the door!

Eric S












On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>