RE: What is "wide review"

> >>> 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 general objective is to ensure that wide review actually
happens, and not just "adequate notice" has been given.  At least
in my own experience, sometimes it's necessary for chairs to 
solicit reviews explicitly.


Ideally, specifications SHOULD have an "applicability statement" outlining the
categories of applications the specification is intended to serve, and the various
roles of agents implementing the specification. (Writers, readers,
intermediaries, search engines, translation tools, editing tools, metadata
extractors, etc.)

"has this document been widely reviewed?" should ask if there has been a
careful review by implementors of the various categories of applications
and roles played in those applications. You might not get 100% coverage,
but significant gaps should be noted; perhaps the claimed applicability
narrowed explicitly.

For example: If HTML is intended to serve not only as a page description 
format for web applications, but also as a representation of rich text email, then
a careful review by implementors of email agents (composers, translators,
webmail agents) would be useful.

For example, while XHTML had adequate notice, but the early 2000's
XHTML working group didn't have adequate review from the browser implementing
community. Careful attention to the "wide review" requirement might have
 forced an earlier confrontation and resolution.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 3:18 PM
> To: Charles McCathie Nevile
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What is "wide review"
> 
> 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 Monday, 29 July 2013 02:53:59 UTC