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

Re: Final version of the proposed plan

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:20:05 -0400
Message-ID: <5238AB65.6040202@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
On 9/17/2013 3:14 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>> Is this a way of saying that Matthias didn't take into account the need
>> to "coordinate reviews from other W3C groups, external groups, and the
>> general public, prior to any Last Call announcement" in the final plan?
>> Sorry, but I can't intuit what you're getting at and need some help.
>> best, Joe
> Perhaps a hypothetical scenario helps: let's say in December the group
> has closed all but 1 issue in the tracker and then publishes a heartbeat
> draft like the proposed plan says. Then Germany's Federal Commissioner
> for Data Protection (or any other random person) decides the document is
> mature enough for him to review it. He reviews it and sends in comments
> asking for substantive changes.
> That is a typical scenario in the W3C standardisation process and groups
> are supposed to take active steps to obtain such early reviews. But the
> proposed plan does not include, for instance, a step where the group
> reaches out to stakeholders without representatives in the Working Group
> when the document is reasonably mature.

Our process requires that the Last Call Draft go to external 
stakeholders and we listen to their feedback.  So that is included in 
this proposal as well.

> Furthermore, the Working Group is required to formally address comments
> like those described above in a timely manner and must attempt to
> satisfy the reviewer. But the proposed plan does not make clear that it
> will formally address them prior to making a Last Call announcement, and
> likely make substantive changes to the document in response, even though
> none of the rules imposed on group participants have been followed.

These issues would be treated as post-Last Call issues, but they would 
still need to be addressed before going to a Recommendation.

> The point is that Matthias and the Working Group participants are under
> an obligation to do what they can to ensure that there will only be one
> single Last Call announcement, and that requires securing and properly
> handling timely external reviews.
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 19:20:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:18 UTC