W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2013

RE: New chapter 7 editor's draft

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:01:38 -0700
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D34728C1384@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Here are some specific suggestions:

7.2.2 Wide Review

OLD "The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the process."

This sentence at the beginning is an invitation to ignore the rest of the section. In particular, Working Groups cannot unilaterally redefine "Wide Review" to mean "anyone who attends our meetings".   Suggestion:

NEW: "While the term 'wide review' is not precisely defined, the following guidelines lay out some requirements."


OLD " the entire set of stakeholders of the Web community, including the general public "

We may give priority to the Web community, but the term 'Web community" isn't itself well defined.

Let's take XML as an example. XML has many stakeholders who are not considered to be central to "the Web community". 

Would an update to XML which is acceptable to the Web community (browser makers, web developers, servers, authoring tools), but hasn't been reviewed at all by any other XML users be considered to have had "wide review" ? I think doing so is irresponsible. 
” have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group and thereby an opportunity to comment on the specification"

"Adequate notice" and "opportunity" are insufficient. Like voting rights in disputed elections, some working groups make commenting on a specification a gauntlet of make-work. Sure there is "opportunity", but you must fill out a bug report, wait for its rejection, file an objection, etc. etc.	

Each specification has an intended set of applications and other specifications which make use of it, and a set of roles for each of those applications. What is important for "wide review" is whether the specification has been adequately reviewed by implementors and user of software and services that fulfill those roles.

Distinguish new specifications and updates of existing specifications: a new spec/recommendation can define its own set of applications and roles. An update to an existing specification should be reviewed by the communities who are using the specification for suitability.

(Perhaps this is what was intended by "dependencies with other groups"

I'd argue for asking Chairs and working group members to actively solicit comments and reviews from known application communities, and to identify those communities and applications in the draft, in "General requirements for Technical Reports" .

For example, add something like:

     * MUST identify the general range of applications for which the technology is intended, and the roles of participants in those applications.

Then, in "wide review", change to

    "The objective is to ensure that the specification has been carefully reviewed for applicability to the range of applications and roles identified, and that the stakeholders of the community, including the general public, have had adequate notice of the progress on the specification and an opportunity to analyze and comment on the specification."

"A Working Group could present evidence that wide review has been received, irrespective of solicitation"

I understand the reluctance to put recalcitrant groups in the critical path of getting something out, but evidence of review by the range of application implementors is very useful, but this sentence makes it seem unwanted.  With a good definition of "wide review", it includes solicitation and receipt. So:

"A Working Group should present evidence of solicitation and receipt of wide review."

Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 16:02:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:14 UTC