- 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