Re: A possible solution to defining "widely reviewed"

On 6/17/2013 8:15 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 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?

I'm not sure what you mean by "do you support this"!

Chaals proposal is currently the only proposal that is in front of the 
AB - hence it is the proposal we are currently working on. Noone has 
excluded the possibility that someone else offers a competing proposal.

In terms of the number of issues - while I think some are challenging 
(e.g. defining wide review) - I also believe that some can be fixed with 
straightforward editorial changes.

> -Thanks, AB

Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 12:51:53 UTC