- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:48:33 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
On 6/13/2013 12:59 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > 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 something. > > 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. In my view, the LC announcement is an important part of getting wide review prior to CR. Since we are looking at dropping LC, the question is to clarify how one achieves wide review prior to LCCR. > As such, it seems like this issue could be resolved by simply removing > the redundant requirement; that is, change: > > [[ > <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q74> > > A Candidate Recommendation is a document that W3C believes has been > widely reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements. > ]] > > to: > > [[ > 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 Friday, 14 June 2013 03:34:01 UTC