W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > July 2017

Re: implementation report template proposal

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:31:49 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C1D4C58C-BF3F-4F26-A005-3D59A82614D3@aleecia.com>
To: "Mike O'Neill" <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
We could, but I’d hate to add any barriers whatsoever to providing feedback. 

Maybe we just file incoming issues ourselves? It could help with duplicates too, since we could basically just add “+1 from Acme Widgets, see <uri>” with a pointer to the mail list note, rather than have two rambling multi-topic submissions to somehow de-dup.

But seeing as I am not following this up with an offer to do the work, consider it a weakly held view. :-)

	Aleecia

> On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote:
> 
> Looks good. We could ask for comments to be filed as issues in the Github repo, which will be easier to keep track of, assign them to people, label  etc.
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com] 
> Sent: 24 July 2017 17:37
> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: implementation report template proposal
> 
> I suggest we give implementors an optional structure to start with, since some may be not at all familiar with W3C. It might be handy for us to keep things organized. Sending reports in email to the dlist as suggested seems fine. 
> 
> We do not appear to have a timeframe for CR review. Now is a good time to ask around and think about how long that should be. Maybe two months? 
> 
> Here are my off-the-cuff thoughts on what we might ask for, with some “thank you for your time” text and what to expect next. 
> 
> 1. Organization name
> 2. Primary contact name & email address or phone number (note: this is public and archived)
> 3. Please describe what you tried to implement 
> 4. What went right? Which sections went smoothly for you
> 5. What went wrong? Which sections were difficult to understand and/or implement
> 6. Suggestions for improvements? For each suggestion, please note if it is nice-to-have to improve the document or critical to your ability to implement
> 7. Other comments 
> 
> Additions / fixes from folks here? 
> 
> 	Aleecia
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 24 July 2017 18:32:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:36 UTC