Re: The Emperor's New Process [Was: Re: Are Director's Calls mandatory for LCCR?]

On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:20:09 +0100, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  
wrote:

> On 11/5/13 2:28 AM, ext Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> Part of the goal is to encourage groups to get their specs reviewed,  
>> preferably including by test implementation, before going to LCCR.
>
> OK, so then if I understand this correctly,

It seems you don't.

> it appears the essence of this 2-year effort is to provide formal
> advice to WGs that if they want to avoid circular WD<->LC<->CR type
> loops, then before they publish a "LCCR", they should create their tests,
> implement the spec, test their implementations and such.

No.

The *essence* of the effort over the last 6 months has been
* to clarify with RFC 2119 language who is responsible for doing what,  
when,
* reduce the overall amount of reading required, and
* optimise the process for groups that "get it right".

Quite a lot of effort has also gone into developing a process whereby the  
AB works on this in public, with easy mecahnisms to provide public input.

> BTW, when this proposal is presented to the groups during the Nov 13  
> Plenary meeting, perhaps it would be helpful to include a couple of real  
> examples that demonstrate the advantages of the proposal (for example if  
> WGs A/B/C had used the proposed process for spec's P/Q/R, the advantages  
> would have been X/Y/Z).

Sure.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 20:58:18 UTC