Re: a couple of concerns

Thanks, Hadley,
I'll be on the call tomorrow.
Talk to you all then,
-Annette

On 1/6/16 5:39 AM, Hadley Beeman wrote:
> Hi Annette
>
> Thank you; I appreciate your thoughtful comments here.  I'm sorry that 
> this happened, and I think you're right to raise this.
>
> I've just discussed this with Phil, and he is looking into the 
> implications for the draft we've just agreed to publish. He'll let us 
> know how that unfolds.
>
> To fix this:  We can try to get another draft out to address these 
> concerns quickly, if you can be entirely clear what you think should 
> be changed (and establish with the editors what they were intending 
> when they put them in) — then we could sort this on Friday, with new 
> text (frozen) for Monday or Tuesday so that next week we can vote on 
> another version.
>
> Going forward: we do need to be more meticulous about:
> a) giving the entire working group at least 4 days (with final, frozen 
> text) to review anything before we vote to publish it
> b) agreeing that, ideally, no changes should be made after we publish.
>
> (This does take some negotiation, and — unfortunately — can be part of 
> why the standards process takes a while!  But it's important to make 
> sure what we're publishing reflects the consensus of the entire group.)
>
> If you're okay with that, we'll put it on the agenda to clear up your 
> concerns about the REST API best practices for Friday.  Do confirm.  
> And thanks again for bringing this up.
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Hadley
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org 
> <mailto:phila@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks for this Annette, please see inline below.
>
>     On 05/01/2016 06:35, Annette Greiner wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>         I’d like to raise a couple of issues that have been bothering
>         me of late in our process for developing the DWBP best
>         practices doc. The most recent version contained some
>         last-minute changes that I disagree with, which points at two
>         different issues.
>
>         First, we should not be making editorial changes that change
>         the sense of the text after a vote to publish.
>
>
>     Definitely true.
>
>      While I’m sure that the editors have never intended to do that,
>     the doc has been undergoing a flurry of post-vote changes each
>     time, and these have sometimes affected the meaning. I am
>     concerned about the pattern of delays in getting the document into
>     a stable state and the lack of stability at the time of voting and
>     immediately thereafter. I think we need to be voting on a document
>     that is as we expect to publish it, including all changes. This
>     would require a publication schedule with dates on which feedback
>     is due and by which changes must be made, and those dates should
>     be before the date on which we vote to publish.
>
>     Correct, of course. I'm explicitly copying the (active) chairs who
>     will, I am sure, respond to this.
>
>
>
>         Second, the most recent changes that prompted this concern are
>         the changes to the text regarding the best practice to use
>         REST APIs. I took some pains to include the two main
>         approaches to using REST in my submission for that BP, and
>         while I must admit that my writing was not successful in
>         making the distinction clear, since it wasn’t clear enough to
>         the editor to preserve it, I was surprised to see how far from
>         my intent the published text appeared. I would be happy to
>         give another try at teasing apart the two approaches. I do not
>         feel that the current BP reflects what most web developers
>         would consider best practices for developing with REST and
>         REST-inspired architectures.
>
>
>     Ack.
>
>     My suggestion is that a new version of the doc is prepared as soon
>     as possible and, following suitable WG review, published.
>
>     Thanks for bringing this up, Annette, I'm sorry it was necessary.
>
>     Phil.
>
>
>     -- 
>
>
>     Phil Archer
>     W3C Data Activity Lead
>     http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
>     http://philarcher.org
>     +44 (0)7887 767755 <tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
>     @philarcher1
>
>

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory