Re: Getting sign-off from horizontal groups

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:47:49 +0200, Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com> wrote:

> For my two cents, I think this is a great idea, but I think it would be  
> strategically good to pair this with the idea of doing more, earlier,  
> shallow reviews, instead of one, more thorough reviews at the tail end.

+100

I'd love to see these done on a feature by feature basis starting when the  
feature is introduced, much as happens with well-organised implementation  
reports and testing...

cheers

> Stop lights, but at the beginning and mid points of the race, and not  
> just the very end ;)
>
> Especially since the issues we raise in our reviews are pretty clear,  
> and rarely take “deep” dives to notice.
>
> Pete Snyder
> {pes,psnyder}@brave.com
> Brave Software
> Privacy Researcher
>
>> On Jun 24, 2019, at 6:44 PM, Jason Novak <jnovak@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2019 23:20:27 UTC