Re: What is "wide review"

On 7/12/2013 7:04 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 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.

I think we all agree on this point.  I believe that Chaals' write-up did 
not intend to be overly prescriptive, nor did my comments.  Did you read 
it otherwise?  The text that you cite above was only intending to give 
an example, not a prescription.

> 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 ...

Great idea.

>
> * 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 12:16:38 UTC