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

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 02:38:20 +0100, Sylvain Galineau <>  

> On 11/7/13 10:02 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <> 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.

Indeed. So the new process makes wide review a requirement before you get  
to LCCR.

(And yeah, th name is horrid. Any consensus on what it should be? It seems  
at a glance that Candidate Recommendation is the popular choice).

> 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;

It sets a little bit of explectation, but it errs on the side of giving  
responsibility to Working Groups, rather than giving them administrative  
hoops to jump.

> I do not think the previous one did either.

A little, but not much.

Ultimately, the process can mandate what it wants, but getting the right  
eyeballs on the spec is the job of the Working Group and nothing written  
in the requirements is more than encouragement to do it right.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 16:14:12 UTC