Re: ISSUE-10 Raising awareness before CR

On 6/9/2013 10:24 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Karl, thanks for doing this. But I would like to see if there's more clarity about what the problems are, somewhat independent of the proposed solution (if you
>  just asks
> " Is there a need for a "Call" whether called "Last Call" or not that precedes CR and indicates that the WG believes it is done (no open issues) and a last review should be undertaken? This may be different than Last Call in the current process."
> but I'm not sure what problem this would solve? What's wrong with "last call" now? Are there things linked to Last Call that you don't want to invoke, that you need another call?

Last Call mixes several important but distinct things.  1. formal patent 
exclusion period that where you don't want to keep setting that off 
needlessly; 2. notice to community that you would really like review; 3) 
notice that you think you're completely done other than implementation 
feedback and testing feedback.

The granularity of a lot of that is wrong.  Different parts of a spec 
stabilize at different times.  They're also implemented at different 
times.  Doing that on the whole document waits until too late.   Having 
Last Call for the first purpose is part of the patent policy, but no 
other review has to be called Last Call (so combining with CR like 
Chaals did is good).

I think it would be useful to have an announcement mail list associated 
with each WG for important status announcements and calls for review (in 
lower case, not a formal step).  This would be a low bandwidth read only 
announcement list, not for discussion.  It could have things like that 
the group has asked to go to last call - or thinks it is done with a 
particular capability and would like feedback on that.  Sections could 
be marked "stable", "under development", etc. and important transitions 
could be announced with requests for feedback (feedback on the public 
list, not the announcement list)

I like the way Chaals combined LC and CR and also ensured the AC gets 
final say again when things change.  It also retains the stable CR part 
for things like specs for ebooks to reference.

> Larry
> --

Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 20:43:59 UTC