Re: content under review - freeze or update?

The agile approach is to add the suggestions (or address why we will not
include them) before the meeting/discussion.
+1 to that approach



On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:34 AM Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> When a draft resource is under review it, should we freeze it or update it
> appropriately during the review period? I think it would be good to
> establish a default approach, and can do differently in specific cases as
> warranted.
>
> Two recent use cases (I might not have the scenarios exactly right):
>
> 1. Authoring Tools List Requirements Analysis was put on the agenda that
> was announced on Wednesday for Friday meeting discussion. On Wednesday
> afternoon, Vicki sent 2 suggestions for additions.
>
> My perspective is that it was best to go ahead and add those (as editor
> agreed) so they were in the document that we discussed on Friday. If the
> doc was considered frozen until after Friday, then we'd have to go back
> after or during the meeting and tell participants those things were/would
> be added. And then do another review.
>
> 2. Curriculum Units 1 & 2 Survey was opened on 31 July with a close date
> of 13 August. Some comments came in right away that lead to edits (that
> have not been merged yet, pending this issue :-).
>
> I know some people (e.g., Brent) will not be able to review this until
> near the end of the review period. It would be more efficient if those
> people reviewed the changes -- so they don't have to re-review them later.
>
> ---
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that I think some people get worn out with
> multiple reviews (and maybe not give good reviews at the end). Therefore,
> it's probably good to avoid too many complete and thorough reviews.
>
> About making changes as they come in (as feasible):
> * Pros: It seems clear that making changes right away leads to better,
> sooner, fewer reviews.
> * Con: The potential negative of not freezing content is that some
> participants print out the pages and start a review, but don't finish it
> and submit comments. Then they go back later and finish their review on the
> old printed pages -- and end up commenting on wording that has changed
> (thus wasting their time).
>
> ---
>
> My perspective is that the pro outweighs the con significantly.
>
> I think if we let participants know of changes, then that mitigates the
> con. I think the situation in the con is not super common -- and we don't
> have to do a detailed diff as we go along, just a high-level bullet list of
> which sections changed.
>
> Let's check in on this in EO-Plan meeting Wednesday, and maybe bring to
> EOWG on Friday if we think useful.
>
> Best,
> ~Shawn
>
>
>

-- 
Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
*Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*