- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 09:17:46 -0400
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 7/21/2013 12:20 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:12:33 -0700, Charles McCathie Nevile > <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 01:27:28 +0500, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Thanks... >> >>> 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. >> >> I think the "However" is unnecessary but I like the rest. Unless >> somebody screams I expect to add it. > > and done. > >> [...] >>>> 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/ >> >> no, but s/that/that receiving/ > > done > >>>> not necessarily the same as wide review, since it >>> >>> s/it/they/ >> >> yep > > done > >>>> 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." >> >> Yep. I expect not to use that exact text, but big chunks of it at least. > > I added the statement that many working groups do this in the middle > of the paragraph... do you think that's enough? Yes, except that you call it Last Call, rather than LCCR :). > > > cheers > > Chaals > >> In particular, I really don't like the final clause. >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> > >
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2013 13:17:54 UTC