Re: Getting sign-off from horizontal groups

The proposal that Pete references below and that I’ve discussed with David and some others is that at the top of a W3C document that has gotten horizontal review, it would be good for each horizontal review team to give a red/yellow/green light like:

i8n - Approves/Approves with issues/Disapproves with issues/Disapproves/Not yet reviewed
AX - Approves/Approves with issues/Disapproves with issues/Disapproves/Not yet reviewed
PING - Approves/Approves with issues/Disapproves with issues/Disapproves/Not yet reviewed
Security - Approves/Approves with issues/Disapproves with issues/Disapproves/Not yet reviewed
Architecture - Approves/Approves with issues/Disapproves with issues/Disapproves/Not yet reviewed

Where “issues" are links to the relevant open issues in Github.

Having such information at the top of the document would help clarify:
- The status of horizontal reviews;
- The outcomes fo horizontal reviews both to the AC and to the wider public; and
- The necessity of horizontal reviews and their outcomes to authors.

And, I think such a public indicia would help discourage horizontal review issues from not being taken seriously.

Do folks want to take this idea to the Process CG?

J

> On Jun 22, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> I think this is a good idea (and also very related to an idea Jason’s been hatching).  I think the value of this idea would be how early in standards’ development PING (and other groups) could get involved.
> 
> For example, consider the enormous amount of functionality on https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/, much of it that has very clear privacy implications.  It’ll be a year or two for some of this stuff to percolate up to PING (as things are done now), by which time it’ll have  implementations in major browsers, web will expect it, and PING getting changes made will be the tooth pulling process it is now.
> 
> If we could get something your and Jason’s 👍/👎/🚨 system in place, and operating way earlier, while the contours of functionality is still being worked out, that could really start bending things in a good direction.  
> 
> Async / not-phone-call reviews of all WG / CG standards every 3-6 months, that PING members do in pairs, using your proposed system?
> 
> Pete Snyder
> {pes,psnyder}@brave.com
> Brave Software
> Privacy Researcher
> 
>> On Jun 21, 2019, at 1:18 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I previously raised the idea of traffic-light signals from x-func (and maybe other) groups that could signal to the team and AC the status of specs that are asking for approval to progress.
>> 
>> I realized the other day that this is quite easily done.
>> 
>> Create a fake interest-group, which only has invited members. Call it the horiz-review-IG. Ask each horizontal review group (accessibility, i18n, privacy, security, TAG, ’team’..) to nominate a voter in the horiz-review-IG group.
>> 
>> The groups gets a WBS poll on specs looking for advancement.  
>> 
>> “Name of your x-functional group, that you are filing on behalf of:
>> 
>> Do you:
>> green) see no reason to stop this this specification being advanced as-is?
>> yellow) think that this specification has considerations that should be carefully weighed by the AC and Director before approving advancement (details below)?
>> red) think that this specification should not be advanced, and be returned to the WG for further work (details below)?”
>> 
>> Then we, as a community, would be able to see what traffic-light and comments were received in summary (and that we’re often missing a security review, ahem).
>> 
>> I think this would elevate the PING comments and feelings quite substantially.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
>> 
> 
>