Re: content under review - freeze or update?

I agree with Eric, I prefer when there is a frozen version that does not 
keep changing while I'm reviewing it. I believe in the past this was the 
request of several participants too. The proposed solution of having two 
links -- one to a frozen snapshot and one to a live draft seems to meet 
the best of both worlds. If EOWG (or EOWG leadership) decides to take up 
this approach, then reviewers of the frozen version *must* make sure to 
also review the closed issues to avoid re-opening/repeating issues.

Best,
   Shadi


On 07/08/2019 09:12, Eric Eggert wrote:
> Just as an idea: If the changes that come in during a review are done in 
> a branch, reviewers have a “frozen” version /and/ editors can update 
> along the way. One could even think about having daily snapshots so that 
> people can just use the most recent version which is then fixed 
> (probably overkill).
> 
> For a thorough review, I think having a frozen version is essential. I 
> kinda expect that those are so far along that the editor is making 
> relatively minor changes anyway.
> 
> As a participant, I find targeting a moving resource exhausting and 
> really hard to motivate myself to make time for it early. When I know an 
> editor is implementing changes as we go, I wait until the last minute to 
> make sure I can review the latest version before it gets back to the group.
> 
> As an editor, I prefer the review of a “frozen” version as it feels more 
> time efficient as I can weigh different comments against each other 
> before making a change or get to the group to get comments. If I already 
> implement a change and then have a different view it means I have to 
> explain to the group what the status was that leads to the change and 
> then what the new change is. If there is a baseline version I can say 
> “these have been the two comments, how shall I tackle this” which feels 
> more productive. I usually prefer to not work on the particular resource 
> at all during review. It helps me to gain perspective for implementing 
> the changes.
> 
> I don’t feel that there is an easy answer to this and it depends on the 
> work mode of the editor.
> 
> 👋 Eric
> 
> On 6 Aug 2019, at 18:34, Shawn Henry 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
> 
> --
> 
> Eric Eggert
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2019 11:44:11 UTC