RE: ISSUE-204, ISSUE-30 and ISSUE-203 processing order

Paul Cotton wrote:
> 
> >> In addition you should expect the Chairs to give authors of change
> >> proposals for an issue that depends on a newly decided issue time to
> >> refactor or withdraw their CP in the face of a WG decision on the
> >> earlier decided issue.
> 
> First, we have an example of this in the thread at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0103.html
> Note in this case we got a very rapid withdrawal of the impacted change
> proposal:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0105.html
> This will allow us to move forward quite quickly - in this case on a
> CfC for ISSUE-183.
> 
> > How much time is considered reasonable, especially in light of how
> much time we've spent discussing these three issues. A week? 10 days? 2
> weeks?
> 
> I don't think the Chairs are willing to give a fixed time for someone
> to refactor their CP but it would not be longer than one month.  I
> expect we would negotiate this on a case by case basis.    See Maciej's
> email listed above for how we will contact the authors of impacted CPs.

I hear: no specific times for allowing re-factoring have been determined by
the Chairs, but no more than 30 days, possibly less than that, to be
negotiated case-by-case. But no more than 30 days. 

The Chairs will be in communication with affected parties with regard to
negotiation of next dates/steps. Is this correct?
(FWIW, I think that's fair)


> 
> > I hear: the Straw Poll for Issue 204 will probably go to survey by no
> later than Monday or Tuesday next, and reach a deadline for objections
> in-or-around July 30 or 31, which is 2 weeks from today.
> > Would that be a reasonable interpretation?
> 
> The Chairs are collecting input on ISSUE-204 and if we have no push
> back then the survey will occur as soon after Thu as we can get it
> ready.
> 
> > Given busy schedules, summer vacations and the fact that Aug. 1 is a
> holiday in many locations (including Ottawa <grin>), can the Chairs
> give us a best-guess estimate of how long they envision this high
> priority decision evaluation for Issue 204 will take? A week? Ten days?
> Two weeks? Longer?
> 
> I cannot commit my co-chairs but I think we would try to do this in
> about one week.

I hear: John's initial guestimate of time-lines for Issue 204 is not far
off, and so we can anticipate a decision from the Chairs most likely in the
first week of August. 

That is not a commitment, but a ball-park estimate that has no official
status: in or around 2 1/2 weeks from today we should be anticipating
hearing a decision on Issue 204. Is this correct?


> 
> > Can we get some specific deadlines please?
> 
> Specific deadlines are not possible since we cannot anticipate the
> issue decisions, their impacts (if any) and the reactions of other WG
> members whose other CPs might be impacted.  In addition if we applied a
> maximum time for each step to get very specific deadlines then the
> deadlines might get changed if an impacted CP with withdrawn as for
> ISSUE-183 (see above example).

So maybe I don't understand why beating a deadline is a problem: if we move
faster than the worst-case scenario, then we all win, and dates can be moved
up. Slipped deadlines however are harmful to all. I thus propose we plan for
the worst, and hope for the best.


Based on the vague-ish numbers YOU have provided to this list, I am hearing
that we should anticipate a decision on Issue 204 in the early days of
August. In a worst-case scenario you would then need to extend up-to an
additional 30 days before opening a Straw Poll on Issue 30, and based on the
outcome of Issue 30 may require up to another 30 days after the decision on
Issue 30 before addressing Issue 203.  

Being *very* generous with dates, my proposed calendar then looks something
like this: (Note, these are all proposed "No Later Than" dates)

Tuesday July 24th: Chairs issue Straw Poll for Issue 204 - it runs for 7
days.
Tuesday July 31st: Straw Poll closes for Issue 204

Friday August 10th: Decision on Issue 204 is delivered by the Chairs
Friday August 10th: (Worst Case: an extension is requested before going to
Straw Poll on Issue 30. Maximum 30 days granted)

Monday Sept. 10th: Deadline for 30-Day extension is reached, Chairs begin to
prepare Straw Poll for Issue 30
Monday Sept. 17th: Straw Poll for Issue 30 is announced - it runs for 7
days.
Monday, Sept. 24th: Straw Poll closes for Issue 30

Thursday, Oct. 4th: Decision on Issue 30 is delivered by the Chairs
Thursday, Oct. 4th: (Worst Case: an extension is requested before going to
Straw Poll on Issue 203. Maximum 30 days granted)

Sunday, Nov. 4th: Deadline for 30-Day extension is reached, chairs prepare
Straw Poll for Issue 203 
Monday, Nov. 12th: Straw Poll for Issue 203 is announced - it runs for 7
days.
Monday, Nov. 19th: Straw Poll closes for Issue 203

Friday, Nov. 30th: Decision on Issue 203 is delivered by the Chairs


Paul, do you see anything here that appears amiss? Should decisions and
timelines be accelerated, then dates can be moved forward. However a certain
amount of fortitude in sticking to Worst Case scenario deadlines would be
appreciated, so that members of this Working Group have a measure to go by. 

If my napkin sketch above seems aggressive, unrealistic, or unachievable
then please say so and perhaps provide some adjusted dates as well. Perhaps
also stating reasons why any of the above mentioned deadlines would be
inappropriate would also be appreciated.

Getting a firm commitment from the Chairs that there is indeed a plan and
milestones in place however is critical, and to date I've not yet heard
that.

Cheers!

JF

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 21:05:12 UTC