Re: What is "wide review"

Charles,

I haven't gotten to the review of the entire revised Chapter 7, but 
in-line are some suggestions on the wide review piece.

Jeff

On 7/8/2013 8:08 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> close ACTION-1
>
> After a discussion, I propose to add the following text to my proposal 
> for chapter 7, as section 7.2.2
>
> [[[
> The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the process.

insert: However, the general objective is to ensure that the entire set 
of stakeholders of the Web community, including the general public, have 
had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group and thereby an 
opportunity to comment on the specification.

> Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has 
> actually reviewed the document and provided comments, particularly in 
> light of the listed dependencies, and how the Working Group has 
> solicited and responded to review. In particular, the Director is 
> likely to consider the record of requests to and responses from groups 
> identified as dependencies in the charter, as well as seeking evidence 
> of clear communication to the general public about appropriate times 
> and which content to review.
>
> As an example, inviting review of new or significantly revised 
> sections published in Heartbeat Working Drafts, and tracking those 
> comments and the Working Group's responses, is generally a good 
> practice which would often be considered positive evidence of wide 
> review. By contrast a generic statement in a document requesting 
> review at any time is likely not to be considered as sufficient 
> evidence that the group has solicited wide review.
>
> A Working Group could present evidence that wide review has been 
> received, irrespective of solicitation. But it is important to note 
> that many detailed reviews is

s/is/are/

> not necessarily the same as wide review, since it

s/it/they/

> may only represent comment from a small segment of the relevant 
> stakeholder community.
> ]]]
>
> The goal is to set some expectations for what kind of review needs to 
> occur, without constraining the definition to the point that invites 
> "process-lawyering"...

I agree with this goal.  But I also think that it would be helpful to 
give a specific example of what is generally viewed as sufficient, since 
otherwise it may be confusing for W3C novices. For example, you can add:

"While the W3C Process does not constrain the definition of getting 
public review, here is one example of what would be sufficient.  If the 
Working Group determines that they have completed their work and are 
ready to enter LCCR, they could publicly announce that they intend to 
enter LCCR in four weeks and indicate to other Working Groups and the 
public that any additional comments should be provided within that 
time.  Such a formal method might not be needed for a group that 
generally has received wide review for their spec, but it is a 
safe-harbor method for those groups that have not adequately engaged 
outside of their group."

>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 20:27:37 UTC