Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal]



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