Re: Coordination

On 4/13/13 3:50 PM, ext Brendan Eich wrote:
> I don't think we can firehose all the new APIs through 
> public-script-coord and get good API review results. 

Regarding the notification part of the issue [e.g. hey TC39 et al., WG X 
started working on API Y, WG X published a FPWD of API Y, WG X wants 
review of Last Call of API Y, etc.], I can certainly announce those type 
of milestones on public-script-coord (for the WGs I chair) and as Chaals 
indicated, we can work with other relevant chairs to do likewise. This 
could be a bit of a firehose but an agreed subject header could help.

(Note the typical comment workflow at W3C is for comments to be 
submitted to a WG-specific list (e.g. public-webapps). However, what 
matters most is getting wide review  so I consider this a minor issue we 
can deal with.)

> We could go API by API in a more focused forum or meeting-like 
> setting, with public-script-coord hosting the notices for upcoming 
> reviews, progress updates, and review conclusions. Thoughts?

I like this idea. Ideally, TC39 would review all W3C APIs as they 
progress but doing some prioritization first makes sense.

(FYI, to help me keep track of which WG is working on what spec and the 
specs' status, I coalesced links to the publication status of some of 
the WGs creating APIs <>.)


Received on Sunday, 14 April 2013 11:41:31 UTC