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

Re: Comments on 6 December 2013 Chapter 7 draft

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:52:51 +0400
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "Revising W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w76lud1ry3oazb@dhcp-219-197-wifi.yandex.net>
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:07:35 +0400, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

> On Dec 13, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile  
> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:09:30 +0400, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:50 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile  
>>> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:03:30 +0400, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote
>> [nsip]
>>>>> - 7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft
>>>> Now 7.3.1
>>>>> The draft says: "The Director must announce the publication of a
>>>>> First Public Working Draft publication to other W3C groups and to
>>>>> the public." In practice we do not announce publications to other
>>>>> W3C groups other than via the home page (which is to the public).  I
>>>>> have also not heard requests for a second type of announcement to
>>>>> groups. Therefore, I propose to delete "to other W3C groups and"
>>>> Raised issue 7. Note that I disagree, and would like to have mail  
>>>> sent at least to chairs@
>>> I stand corrected. Our transitions document already says for FPWD:
>>> "In order to facilitate peer review, once the document has been  
>>> published, the Chair sends a transition announcement to chairs@w3.org  
>>> and the group's public mailing list."
>>> Since it's in the transitions documentation, can we remove it from the  
>>> process document?
>> IMHO, No. It should be in the process, so that it doesn't stop  
>> happening e.g. because someone just decides that it isn't necessary  
>> since the news is already on the home page or something.
> Appearance in the process document will have no practical impact on  
> publications since people don't consult the process document
> when publishing.

And other people (existence proof: Me) do.

People certainly look at the process document from time to time and ask  
why it wasn't followed.

> While I don't think it's necessary (and adds to the length of the  
> process document) I don't object to having it there as the justification  
> for the existing pubrules requirement.

OK. Anyway, I haven't figured out how to resolve the issue, so it is still  
raised (I'd like to Open it, but I am waiting on SteveZ to call a meeting  
or find a process to agree things between meetings).



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 10:53:25 UTC

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