W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Change proposal: last public working draft

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 02:14:12 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B1079C14-B471-44EA-95FE-CFBEDBDF67CF@w3.org>
To: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Hi Aleecia,

I've created ISSUE-214 on the Compliance June product to track this issue. 

And I've documented this change proposal on the wiki:    

Based on your email and your explanation on the call last week, I interpreted your change proposal (and tried to describe it as such in the issue and wiki page) as a suggestion that the shorter "June draft" that we've been working on as the editors' draft should be an additional set of options to the April 30th Working Draft and that we should continue work off of that combined version. On the other hand, David, in supporting, suggested that we should work off of the shorter June text but use a longer timeline for objections. I don't guarantee, then, that I've captured this correctly, but have tried my best.


On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com> wrote:

> Peter's draft previews how simple and readable we can get the Compliance document to be once we arrive at consensus. It is great to read a sensible proposal of how things might fit together, and it is a hopeful step that shows we can get to a final recommendation. I hope the notes I sent from the 90 minute call highlighting places not at consensus and places where the language could be made more clear will be of some use.
> We were given a week to flag what we cannot live with in Peter's latest draft. What I cannot live with is the idea that after two and a half years of work, anything we do not re-raise in a one week timeframe will be abruptly wiped out. I continue to have great frustration with the idea that one must have sustained objection every single time or an issue will be dismissed. This is a strange approach. One week is also far too short a time in which to expect people to take on this work. On the call last week, this was a point we had tremendous agreement upon. I am not trying to stall progress, at all, but going through the entirety of multiple documents to think through what small wording changes will change in practice is not a quick, breezy task. We do important work; we should do it well.
> Consequently, I submit the latest public working draft of 30 April 2013, available from
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-compliance/
> Implicit is the suggestion that we look at Peter's draft as another set of alternatives to issues already raised. Given the opportunity to walk through, discuss, and properly consider the issues, it would not shock me to find I support Peter's text over the other alternatives in some (but not all) cases. As we all know, the working draft includes proposals I do not support. But I prefer we actually decide them as a group, and engage the issues. I look forward to doing so.
> 	Aleecia
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 09:14:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:16 UTC