- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:38:20 -0800
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- CC: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Advisory Board <ab@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 11/7/13 10:02 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > > > >On Thursday, November 7, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > >> On Thursday, November 7, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN >>TECH) wrote: >> > What we did consider are a couple of points: >> > - The LC and CR signals in the current process tend to happen these >>days after specs are widely implemented and what might sound like >>constructive suggestions (e.g., "the names aren't very intuitive") are >>made too late to be helpful. >> >> >> >> It is absolutely critical to get developer eyeballs looking at the >>specs before it's too late to change the APIs. Anything that helps with >>this is an important step forward. >> > >Agree. It’s also never too early to get input into a spec from anyone. >Taking away signals that allow people to wait longer to provide feedback >would actually be a good thing. LC or CR is _waaaaayyy_ too late to be >providing feedback. It's too late because LC assumes most substantive feedback has already been handled. A few weeks of LC only makes sense if you assume wide review to have already happened. So I'm not sure we're debating a new issue here. Most web developers I know never really understood what Last Call means or what kind of a time window it involves. The new process does not fix this; I do not think the previous one did either.
Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 01:38:57 UTC