Re: Next Draft needs 60 day review time

We expressed that as well but Bruce pointed out that the way the Government
thinks is that is that if we only allow 30 days, then we don't want their
feedback. From his perspective, they simply will ignore any request for
feedback that is less than 60 days.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:14 PM Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:

> Review deadlines in our documents are usually not hard deadlines. Even if
> we publish another draft, we'd accept comments on a prior one, unless they
> really became overcome by events. The deadline is mainly to create a sense
> of urgency so people don't take a year to review a draft. I wouldn't want
> to be stopped from publishing in 3 months because we set a 3-month review
> deadline and are still waiting for comments, I'd rather just take comments
> as they come in.
>
> The concern over bureaucratic timelines is bigger when we reach the wide
> review stage. At that point we should certainly allow at least 3 months
> before planning to advance to CR. And the transition to CR triggers another
> 60- or 90-day period before we can progress to Rec. So for me, I prefer to
> keep 1-month review deadlines in Working Drafts, until we reach wide
> review, then extend them.
>
> Michael
> On 22/01/2021 2:19 p.m., Rachael Bradley Montgomery wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email is just to make sure we capture that US gov (and likely every
> other major bureaucracy) needs a stated 60 or 90 day deadline to review the
> document. The next draft should have a longer review period.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rachael
>
> --
> Rachael Montgomery, PhD
> Director, Accessible Community
> rachael@accessiblecommunity.org
>
> "I will paint this day with laughter;
> I will frame this night in song."
>  - Og Mandino
>
>

-- 
Rachael Montgomery, PhD
Director, Accessible Community
rachael@accessiblecommunity.org

"I will paint this day with laughter;
I will frame this night in song."
 - Og Mandino