- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:28:11 +0200
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Mark van Assem (E-mail)" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:13:35 +0200, Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
>> ... I realise we're falling a bit behind the W3C WG recommended 3
>> month heart beat, Ralph do you think that's a problem?
>
> not a major problem. We're not doing Rec-track work, so there's
> less heat, it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere (so there's
> more heat :)), and there are Rec-track WGs who have gotten
> away with far longer than 3-month reporting cycles. Not
> recommended, but not a criminal offense either.
It is not a hanging crime, and groups have got away with far worse in the
past (running for a year or so without charter, publishing unchartered
documents while long out of charter, not publishing for well over a year
are cases that leap to mind).
On the other hand as an AC rep I hope that this mail is more casual in
tone than the thought processes behind it. W3C process, including the
various milestones and requirements are as much a part of our contract
with W3C as the confidentiality agreement. Quite rightly, minor breaches
of confidentiality are generally raised straight to the relevant AC member
as a serious problem, and I don't think that the basic requirements placed
on groups are somehow different. To err is human, to decide that it
doesn't matter if you just routinely ignore some bits of the contract
strikes me as stretching a point.
I hope that the heartbeat requirement is actually taken seriously enough
that failing to publish where the group is up to for a month or so extra
isn't considered generally acceptable. After all, it is a minimum
requirement - there is no reason the group can't publish every two months
if it wants to.
I realise that it this a public group, so it's workings are actually
available anyway. This suggests that there is nothing really to risk by
producing a proper published Working Draft, except perhaps ironing out
kinks in that process. Confidence in W3C is in part based on whether it
can do what it claims, and meeting mechanical deadlines for document
drafts is about the easiest of those claims to meet.
Do have a good vacation, and don't worry about this until you get back -
nobody gets paid enough to spoil their chance at just enjoying themselves
for a brief period every so often. But please, when you come back to work,
do try and meet the mechanical parts of the milestones and planning like
the heartbeat publications...
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
Here's one we prepared earlier: http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Friday, 12 August 2005 08:28:31 UTC