Re: Review of tests upstreamed by implementors

On 20/03/2013 18:08 , Tobie Langel wrote:
> This isn't actually documented formally anywhere, but I've also heard
> it mentioned numerous times.

Not specifically for Tobie:

The W3C is about to turn 20. In Web years, this is a land of lore and 
legend, filled with tradition and the words of the ancient.

There is an awful of lot of "we do it this way" and "you can't do that" 
going around. Not for bad reason, it's just stuff that made sense at 
some point, and then stuck. But if it doesn't make sense, no matter how 
new to this you are, if someone can't point you to a validated rule in 
writing, challenge it. People's reaction is overwhelmingly often to 
assume a follow-the-rules attitude, probably because this is about 
standards. We shouldn't. For everything that needs rules, there's the 
patent policy (and the few parts of the process that support it). 
Everything else is meant to be broken.

And if someone *can* find something in writing, challenge it anyway. 
Grouchiness is our strongest asset in fighting the thing that any 
organisation will invariably acquire through the insults of time: 
bureaucracy.

> I proposed that we drop this requirement and explicitly state so in
> the new review process, i.e. something along the lines of:
>
> "Contributions must be reviewed by a peer. The reviewer can be a
> colleague of the contributor as long as the proceedings are public."

I'm getting a sense of violent agreement on this.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 19:59:00 UTC