W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2014

RE: Timeline for TPE Last Call and Update of Acknowledgements

From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:32:14 +0000
To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r4wf8jrws191ej6q530digtq.1395775977968@email.android.com>
That sounds like a wonderful idea, can you or the W3C staff outline the plan to outreach to all of these different constituencies to ensure this parallel review occurs?


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Edward O'Connor
Date:03/25/2014 2:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Timeline for TPE Last Call and Update of Acknowledgements

Hi Mike,

I wrote:

>> To take an extreme example, HTML5's LC period lasted around 9 weeks:
>> it entered Last Call on 25 May and its LC period ended on 3 August
>> (back in 2011).
>>
>> I hope we can all agree that TPE is somewhat less complex than HTML5.

You replied:

> Did HTML5 have as diverse a set of potential public commenters?

Actually yes. But that's entirely irrelevant to how long its LC lasted.

> A more "complex" document for the audience to digest, but when a
> technical spec needs only be reviewed by technologists, 9 weeks seems
> reasonable. When a technical spec that contains lots of policy needs
> to be reviewed by so many different interest groups we should expect
> at least as much opportunity.

We base the length of LC periods on the complexity of the spec. Simpler
or smaller specs get shorter review periods, because it takes less time
for a person to review them. The size or diversity of the reviewer pool
is completely irrelevant, because they review the spec in parallel.


Ted
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 19:33:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:08 UTC