- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:37:53 -0600
- To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- CC: masinter@adobe.com, public-iri@w3.org
On 6/7/12 2:12 AM, Ted Hardie wrote: > I disagree with Larry on this, but not terribly strongly. It's my > impression that the mailing list review is good for the overall > process, as it helps folks see their particular need in a larger > community context. It's a bit of extra hoop-jumping, but I think the > proposals that go through that review and get to the designated expert > are the better for it. > > What's not clear, though, is how the mailing list traffic is then > interpreted. This part of the instructions: > > "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed > registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines > given in this document." > > makes it seems like the document author must make revisions, where it > is perfectly reasonable in some cases for them to consider the > feedback, then just ship it to the Expert Reviewer. > > Perhaps we can make it mandatory, but change that stage to "After > considering the mailing list commentary, the submitter may wish to > update the document prior to sending to the Expert Reviewer for a > decision." Would that work? <hat type='individual'/> Yes, that would work. I thought that was covered by "as needed", but your description is clearer. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 15:04:39 UTC