Re: Going to CR with AS 2.0? [was Re: Social Web WG agenda for 11 August 2015]

On 2015-08-11 09:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 11 August 2015 at 14:55, hhalpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-08-10 15:07, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> On 10 August 2015 at 20:57, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Now available:
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11 [1] [1]
>> 
>> Note:
>> 
>> "PROPOSED: Publish AS 2.0 as a Candidate Recommendation"
> 
>  I think we would need to first:
> 
>  1) Prove we've solicited input from the communities in the WG charter
> (this can be done by sending them emails, and then having pointers to
> the archive) in the liason list of the WG
>  2) Closed all open issues.
>  3) We also should have some evidence of interoperable
> implementations.
> 
>  While I do support pushing to CR as soon as we can with AS2.0 and
> would be disappointed if we can't get to CR by TPAC 2015, I'm not sure
> if we're there yet. The communities should be formally notified (and I
> don't think the microformat community is particularly happy right
> now), and we still have an open issue. My preference would simply be
> to harmonize the AS2.0 vocabulary with the microformat voocabularies.
> I do know there's a number of interoperable implementations in
> progress, a health-check is in order for them.
> 
> Harry, please could you provide pointers to back up your line of
> argument.
> 
> IMHO AS2 is a standards quality piece of work, if it's not CR now,
> it's close to.  As I, and others, have stated previously (eg in issue
> 44 and issue 26), MF2 isnt of the same quality, and it's hard to see
> it getting there by TPAC, tho such a commitment would be welcome.  Why
> not just action issue 44, as it was once before, and close issue 45.
> 
> It would be a shame to hold up AS2 because MF isnt ready.

Melvin,

Please read W3C Process for "Candidate Recommendation" - my point 2 was 
hoow wide review. MF is  widely deployed (much more so than RDFa or 
AS2.0 it seems), and thus ignoring it should be justified. I don't see a 
good justification personally. I would suggest before voting on CR, the 
WG determine how we will fulfil the following for AS2.0:

To publish a Candidate recommendation, in addition to meeting the 
general requirements for advancement a Working Group:

     must show that the specification has met all Working Group 
requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been 
deferred,
     must document changes to dependencies during the development of the 
specification,
     must document how adequate implementation experience will be 
demonstrated,
     must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least four 
weeks after publication, and should be longer for complex documents,
     must show that the specification has received wide review, and
     may identify features in the document as "at risk". These features 
may be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a 
requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation.




thanks,
      harry

> 
>> I am at risk for the call today (on vacation and in transit), but I
>> hope we can discuss this more and would be happy to explain (or
>> Sandro could) over this telecon or the next one.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> harry
>> 
>> This is great news!
>> 
>> --
>> Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web
>> Technologies - IBM Software Group
>> 
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11 [1]
> 
>  --
> 
>  Harry Halpin (W3C/MIT) harry@w3.org
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11

-- 

Harry Halpin (W3C/MIT) harry@w3.org

Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2015 14:24:58 UTC