Re: A possible solution to defining "widely reviewed"

In the 5-6 years that I have been chairing WGs and as an AC rep for even 
longer, I don't recall this ever being a problem, so surely I'm missing 

To help me understand this issue, please provide some links to the cases 
where this caused a problem. (I'm trying to understand the relative 
priority of this issue, now captured as Issue-9.)

The PD says LCs must be announced - which the Team always dutifully does 
- and that seems sufficient to me to address the wide review 
requirement. As such, it seems like this issue could be resolved by 
simply removing the redundant requirement; that is, change:


A Candidate Recommendation is a document that W3C believes has been 
widely reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements.


A Candidate Recommendation is a document that W3C believes satisfies the 
Working Group's technical requirements.

-Thanks, AB

On 6/12/13 8:01 PM, ext Stephen Zilles wrote:
> All,
> There are a number of cases where we do not want to list required 
> actions, but want to allow a number of ways to satisfy a criteria. The 
> “Wide Review” criteria is an example of this. It is up to a Working 
> Group to show that a specification that they want to progress has been 
> “widely reviewed”. Traditionally, one method they used was to announce 
> on the TR page that the specification is ready and that if you have 
> not yet reviewed and commented upon it, now is the time to do so 
> (a.k.a. “Last Call”). The WG can show “Wide Review” by showing that a 
> number of comments were received, replies were generated and the 
> commenters accepted the replies. But suppose there is no last call, 
> but a series of Heartbeat Working Drafts that carefully update the 
> status section to identify which sections are stable and should be 
> reviewed. The database of processed comments helps show the document 
> is reviewed, but there are questions as to whether the review was 
> “wide”, where “wide” mostly means outside the community producing and 
> implementing the specification. Showing reviews outside this community 
> helps to show “wide”. Showing the groups with Dependencies and 
> Liaisons have done review also helps show “wide”. But, the Process 
> Document needs a definition of “Wide Review” that is testable and such 
> statements as those above are not sufficiently precise.
> That leads me to suggest that we use a technique the US Federal 
> Regulations use; that of the “Safe Haven”. A “Safe Haven” is a 
> testable criterion that, if met, guarantees that that broad criterion 
> with which it is associated is also met. But, it is possible to also 
> meet the broad criterion without meeting the “Safe Haven” criteria.
> How would this work for “Wide Review”? An example “Safe Haven” would 
> be to say a WG meets the “Wide Review” criterion if it: 1) has issued 
> a Last Call and 2) its comment database shows comments from all 
> dependent groups and groups and individuals outside the specification 
> developers and implementers.
> But, there would be other ways to satisfy the “Wide Review”; for 
> example, by doing a distributed sequential review whose comment 
> database shows the same wide participation.
> Steve Zilles

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 16:59:56 UTC