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: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:59:17 -0400
Message-ID: <5239A3A5.1070100@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
On 9/18/2013 8:42 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> For issues that come in after the deadline:
>>   - the WG can choose to address them before last call (e.g. for bug
>> fixes, or items that the WG wants to address immediately)
>>   - as a default, they would be postponed and addressed as post-Last
>> Call issues.
> That is an unfortunate misinterpretation of the proposed plan. Regard-
> less of how the Working Group chooses to organise its decision making
> process internally, it is still obligated to follow the requirements of
> the W3C Process. Issuing a Last Call announcement while having failed
> to formally address substantive review comments received more than a
> few days earlier is a violation of the W3C Process.

This pragmatic approach has been used successfully in other WGs (e.g. 
HTML5) as a way to organize issues and prevent a steady raising of 
issues from stopping Last Call.  Once Last Call consensus is reached 
however, there is an absolute requirement to address the late issues.

> While one could get the impression from reading the proposed plan that
> the Working Group has an option to postpone addressing substantive re-
> view comments until after the Last Call announcement, and you seem to
> have interpreted it that way, that is not an option the Working Group
> has under the W3C Process. Hence my suggestion to clarify the proposed
> plan.
>>> By the way, could you point me to the document the Working Group has
>>> published under the provisions of Process section 6.2.7 3rd paragraph?
>> I'm not sure I understand your question.  Are you looking for a pointer
>> to the draft that was published last week?
> Your confusion is surprising.

I was not confused about the process.  I was confused about your 
question.  I believe that Rigo responded elsewhere on the thread.

>   The 3rd paragraph of 6.2.7 is just this:
>    In exceptional cases, the Chair MAY ask the Director to be excused
>    from this publication requirement. However, in this case, the Working
>    Group MUST issue a public status report with rationale why a new draft
>    has not been published.
> To recall, the bare minimum "publication requirement" is:
>    Each Working Group MUST publish a new draft of at least one of its
>    active technical reports on the W3C technical reports index [PUB11]
>    at least once every three months.
> It seems the Working Group has failed to publish anything in May, June,
> July, and August; that is more than three months. Accordingly, I expect
> there to be a "public status report with rationale why a new draft has
> not been published". I could not find any such report linked from the
> group's homepage.
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 12:59:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:56 UTC