- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:19:33 +0100
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 13/02/2014 19:44 , David Singer wrote:
> Yes, I think that framing the question to the group, and not
> expressing it as a consensus-call, would be good.
More than that, the group can ship a heartbeat whenever the editors ask
for it. No need to ask a question for heartbeats, only transitions and
LC. It's a lot less overhead.
> 6.2.7 Working Group "Heartbeat" Requirement
>
> It is important that a Working Group keep the Membership and public
> informed of its activity and progress. To this end, each Working
> Group should publish in the W3C technical reports index a new draft
> of each active technical report at least once every three months. An
> active technical report is a Working Draft, Candidate Recommendation,
> Proposed Recommendation, or Proposed Edited Recommendation. Each
> Working Group must publish a new draft of at least one of its active
> technical reports on the W3C technical reports index [PUB11] at least
> once every three months.
Yes, but the text above dates from a time when drafts were kept under
seals in Member-only space. Given publicly available editors' drafts and
discussion lists, the heartbeat requirement is addressed without
producing an endless stream of largely useless procedural heartbeats.
We should, of course, fix this Consortium-wide:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2013OctDec/0029.html
but in the meantime there is no requirement for groups with public
drafts and public discussion to stick to the heartbeat rule. It's from
another era.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 09:19:47 UTC