W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

About WG process Re: the role of public-rdf-shapes@w3.org

From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:59:34 -0700
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
Message-Id: <BBDB76E5-6840-4A0F-A0D6-8CFBF107F0A3@syapse.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
I have been following Peter’s comments with some interest …

I wondered about this comment:

On Sep 28, 2016, at 6:12 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Technically speaking, the process doesn't require us to formally dispose of the comments we receive at this stage on the Recommendation track but it's to everybody's benefit to try and address them earlier rather than later.

I see that 
 is governed by the 1 September 2015 W3C Process Document <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/>.

and in the process document I read
https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#transition-reqs <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#transition-reqs>

For all requests to advance a specification to a new maturity level 
must formally address <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#formal-address> all issues raised about the document since the previous maturity level.

 where formally address is:

https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#formal-address <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#formal-address>
a group has formally addressed an issue when it has sent a public, substantive response to the reviewer who raised the issue. A substantive response is expected to include rationale for decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a pointer to charter scope, or a pointer to a requirements document). 

Having worked with Peter commenting on documents which I have edited, I appreciate his desire to receive such a response. It is very much easier to work with a commentator who works within the process. 

It appears that on several issues that have been raised he has not received a substantive response, and the WG thus needs to track those issues, so that before advancing from Last Call to Candidate Rec, all these issues can be addressed.

Conventionally WGs use issue lists for this purpose, and close an issue in a way which keeps a link to the substantive response.
Of course you are free to use a back-of-an-envelope for the real status according to the process doc, and to close issues on the issue list when they have not been formally addressed. However, if you do so, and lose that envelope, then Peter, and others, will be able to invoke 6.2.2 to prevent your advancement past last call.

Really this is your call, you are quite right to say:
" the process doesn't require us to formally dispose of the comments we receive at this stage “

but I fear that if you insist on sloppy process at this stage that it will come back to bite you, and I for one, believe that WGs should get into the habit of keeping good records of formally addressing comments before Last Call, which you articulate as “it's to everybody's benefit”

In particular, on ISSUE-107, "The WG acknowledged your point but decided to leave the spec as is.” is not a substantive response. It will be very rude of you, if at Last Call, Peter points out that you have not given a substantive response, and then receives one which is “Yes one method would be better than two, but it is not essential, and now too late to improve things.”.

I have yet to review your documents, and hope to do so later in the process. I will also be reviewing Peter’s comments at that time, particularly those where he is disappointed with the working-group response: I would normally expect it to be easy to find from the WG records, such comments, the substantive responses, and Peter’s replies to those substantive responses.

Jeremy J Carroll
Senior Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 17:00:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC