Re: Publication schedule for first public working drafts

I was thinking about this a bit more, and I have a bit longer  
schedule proposal for the core trio.

	Oct:
		Publish first WD with body text verbatim but with appropriate  
disclaimers.

	By first f2f:
		we clear all current editorial issues (typos, the unclarity of the  
conditions on roles, etc.) or any others we fine, and by the end of  
the first f2f we identify parts of the documents which are  
controversial. We decide at the first F2F to publish fresh documents  
with the fixes and clear flags for the controversial bits.

	Thereafter,
		as we clear reasonable chunks of contentious issues, we publish new  
WDs to reflect that.

I'm thinking it would be nice to have markers akin to what's in the  
HTML5 drafts, see:
	http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/

(Look at the "big issue" text, which is red and in a box.)

So, for example, in the RDF Mapping document, a clear contentious  
issue is the use of reification for annotated axioms, both in  
general, and in the particular way it's done. I'd like that the  
second WD of that document either have changed/confirmed that  
(because the WG has consensus by then...highly unlikely, IMHO), or we  
flag it brightly with a link to a raised issue about it.

I also think that by the first f2f it would be nice to have gathered  
up existing implemention and user feedback. Publishing an early WD  
gives us something sensible, post-submission, to point to. (I.e.,  
"Hey implementors, Hey users, please look at the first WD and let us  
know any problems you have.:")

So, to reiterate, my main reason for pubbing first wds early is to  
solicit as wide review as early as possible and to get reviewers of  
older versions to refresh their reviews.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 12:36:48 UTC