Re: What is "wide review"

On 7/10/13 4:27 PM, ext Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> "While the W3C Process does not constrain the definition of getting 
> public review

I agree getting `appropriate` review is important and I think there is 
room for improvement.

However, I'm not convinced the document that defines the TR process 
needs to be overly prescriptive re the review process. The set of 
stakeholders and expectations for a specific document can vary quite a 
bit and there is somewhat of a `social` aspect to the review process. As 
such, perhaps the TR process can simply defer to another [living] 
document that includes guidelines, checklists and BP type information 
for reviews such as ...

* Review scope and expectations for the various spec states (WD, CR, ...)

* Expectations and actions for the various actors: WG Chair, WG Team 
Contact, Team Comm, Publication group, etc.; define Who does What and When.

* Horizontal review groups and their focus area(s). For example, TAG, 
WAI, PING, ECMA/JS APIs, WebSecIG, WebPerfIG, Testing Infra group, etc.

* External review (by other SSO(s)) if needed ...

(If folks are interested in `externalizing` the review process instead 
of complicating the TR process itself, I'm willing to help. [I wonder if 
Karl already some relevant material ...])

-AB

#Tracker tags: Issue-8 Issue-9 Issue-28

Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 11:04:55 UTC