RE: [web audio] I18N self-review? [I18N-ACTION-756]

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the note back.


As near as I can tell, your WG did not request a review from the I18N WG.

We did, and got one, but you can certainly be forgiven for forgetting about it.

I discussed it with you face to face at TPAC 2016 (yes, we really have been "almost ready for CR" for two years now).

AP> I dimly recall having that conversation, but of course didn’t connect it with this spec lo these two years later. As it happens, our record-keeping is based on what’s in our github radar plus formal requests via the email list (www-international@ or public-i18n-core@). These don’t include webaudio, so I assumed we had missed you along the way. Apologies for the spotty record-keeping on our part.

The transition request was eventually sent on 6 September 2018 (after the second TAG review and the Privacy review had concluded). Transition requests have a built-in one week delay to allow other chairs to indicate that they are not done reviewing a document, or have unaddressed concerns.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2018JulSep/0115.html


AP> I am subscribed to chairs and do look for transreqs. I am also on the notifications list (in case I miss the transreq). In this case, I saw the transition announcement on chairs@. In case it isn’t clear: this is a manual process to ensure that WGs that haven’t formally requested a review (i.e. most of them) get the form letter you just received.

I'm just checking that you are subscribed to chairs and see the transition request emails? Nowadays the email to chairs is first developed on a transitions GitHub repo.
https://github.com/w3c/transitions


AP>I am on chairs. I was not aware of this repo until just now and have watched it. Thank you!

Assuming otherwise and based on the transition announcement, I have added your document to our review radar [3].
Thanks. Any further review will of course be welcome.

AP> We found one minor issue (https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/598 if you want a head-start) which will likely be reviewed in this week’s teleconference.

To that end, could you let us know:


1.       Did you have a chance to perform a self-review or did you otherwise consider requesting an I18N WG review?
We requested one and, having described the scope and intent of the API, were told by you that it was not needed for this sort of API that does not have human-readable text strings, etc.

AP> Yes, that’s generally true and—no offense—your spec was pretty “boring” from an I18N perspective (which is what we want). In retrospect, it’s usually better to request reviews in writing—so that I put you into the appropriate bucket, but don’t let that stop you from verbally requesting them at a F2F somewhere, such as TPAC. I try to capture these in radar also. Also, note that doing the self-review exercise is often useful—you know more about your spec than I will even once I’ve read it.


2.       Were you aware of horizontal reviews as part of the process? If not, how can we better make you aware or make it easier to work with us?

We were fully aware, and as the transition request makes clear we had a fair bit of horizontal review - not one but two TAG reviews, accessibility discussions, a very full privacy and security review, as well as your own.
Sorry that it took us so long to finally request CR transition that you had forgotten about us!


AP> Sorry for the fire drill. As noted, I am starting to resort to form letters because, in fact, many transreqs have not requested a review for me to forget about. In this case, you did the right thing. Thank you for your help.



Kind regards,



Addison

Addison Phillips
Sr. Principal SDE – I18N (Amazon)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.