- From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:36:01 -0700
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
- CC: "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CE2F61DA5FA23945A4EA99A212B15795720FD3D01C@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>
I went thru the listed "requirements" (some are SHOULDs) for advancing documents along the Chapter 7 "REC track". I have attached an Excel spreadsheet which has the various requirements as rows and the various kinds of documents as columns. (Except there is an extra column which is the General Requirements for Advancement on the Recommendation Track. Based on this document I make the following observations. 1. I am not at all sure that it is worthwhile having General Requirements for Advancement (section 7.2) There seem to be too many special cases to make it worthwhile. Looking across the table, there seem to be exceptions to every single "General Requirement". If that is that case, then why have them. 2. "Heartbeat" Working Drafts are steps along the Process, but have many fewer requirements than the more formal steps (FPWD, LCCR, Request for REC) 3. I have the feeling that the "General Requirements" were not intended to apply to "Heartbeat" Working Drafts, but these drafts are steps along the Process. This makes for confusion. For example, "Heartbeat" WDs explicitly call out that significant editorial changes SHOULD be identified, but the other steps leave this to the General Requirements. Should not all steps work the same way? 4. Some cells that are empty (because the general requirement is supposed to apply or it is too soon to have to respond) may need to be filled in. For example, the General Requirements say all comments should be 'formally addressed', but the Request for Recommendation step repeats this requirement. How should this be interpreted? 5. The handling of "Demonstrating (at least two*) interoperable implementations for each feature" is ill specified and confusing among the steps. * Having two implementations is currently a goal, not a requirement. 6. Only LCCR has a fixed (minimum) time for comments. Should not this also apply to Request for Recommendation? 7. The statement of "requests for publication" are different, perhaps necessarily, but it is still confusing. 8. It would be helpful (IMO) to list the requirements in each step in the same order. Steve Z.
Attachments
- application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet attachment: RequirementsForAdvancement.xlsx
Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 04:36:30 UTC