Re: A possible solution to defining "widely reviewed"

On 6/13/13 6:48 PM, ext Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I agree with the requirement for some type of explicit `Request for 
Comments` after the WG agrees the spec is feature complete and before 
there is some type of `Call for Implementations`.

I think the RfC step is especially important now that various 
stakeholders are using EDs as the version to use for early reviews. And, 
since some WGs now view "heartbeat" pubs aka (plain) WDs as mostly 
make-work, it seems like it will become relatively common for a group to 
publish the mandatory FPWD and then just work on its ED until the spec 
is feature complete.

> Since we are looking at dropping LC, the question is to clarify how 
> one achieves wide review prior to LCCR.

Based a quick scan of the Issues list, it seems like Chaals' proposal 
creates quite a few Issues 

It seems like it would be helpful to try to get consensus on the high 
priority issues before soliciting proposals to address those issues (and 
analyzing proposed resolutions like Chaals'). Do you support this or has 
it already been decided that Chaals' proposal is the sole proposal of 
this group's focus?

-Thanks, AB

Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 12:16:28 UTC