Re: WG comments, Working Drafts, and Last Call -- clarification please?

Sam Ruby On 09-08-06 20.03:

> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I think it's absurd that even though Sam knew this (as he 
>> mentioned it), he still decided to bother seeking out consensus on the 
>> publication of a Working Draft, rather than simply publishing it and 
>> letting us get on with discussing the technical issues independently.
> 
> I do believe I could have done it, but as I said on 3 Aug[1], I 
> explicitly decided not to do so at that time.



This round has showed that it is quite effective to have some kind
of deadline. Last Call is but another deadline. Solving tomorrow 
what can be solved today is a bad life rule.

May be you could have published by fiat. But you SHOULD have done 
what you did:

The purpose of the heartbeat requirement is to "keep the 
Membership and public informed of its activity and progress"[1].

And it is of course very good use of the WD publication institute 
to use it to show progress on the controversial issues.

And we are allowed to publish WDs as often as we wish ("at least 
once every three months"[1]).

It would IMHO be a good idea to now switch to ha more frequent 
heartbeat by agreeing to publish a new WD each month (or third 
week), promising to solve exactly one (or perhaps 2) 
controversial/important issue(s) in connection with each publication.

Another way, more in line with Lachlan's view, perhaps, could be 
to postpone the controversial issue to the next WD, and thereby 
also postpone the Last Call.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#three-month-rule
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 18:33:02 UTC