Re: General comments for Proposed Chapter 7

On 11/27/2013 8:28 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Here are some general comments re the proposed Chapter 7 ...
>
> * The proposal includes useful editorial cleanup and simplifications 
> but suffers from some organizational issues as captured in Issue-59.
>
> * I like the elimination of Proposed Recommendation. [If AC reps are 
> interested in a spec, they should be engaged much earlier in the 
> process than PR. Additionally, PRs are mostly opaque to WG and require 
> quite a bit of `make work` for Editors.]
>
> * In practice, I don't think the elimination of LC or combining LC and 
> CR [depending on how one spins the gist of the proposal] provides a 
> significant improvement, and as I stated last June, it appears to just 
> create a bunch of new issues. F.ex. it appears a new process will be 
> needed re "what is Wide Review, how are Reviews done, who is 
> responsible for doing what" (which, IMHO is precisely the point of LC 
> as defined in Process-20051022).
>
> * As far as I can tell, the gist of the LC+CR proposal can be achieved 
> within the context of Process-20051022. The underlying issue the 
> proposal appears to try to address is "how to prevent a spec from 
> entering the dreaded LC->CR->LC->CR->... cycle". Of course the 
> proposal doesn't eliminate the cycle problem (a spec can still have a 
> LCCR->LCCR->... cycle), it just appears to "shift" the problem.
>
> * Rather than change LC and CR, it seems like it would be more 
> effective to attack the cycle problem via Education and Outreach f.ex. 
> create Best Practices that describe the cycle problem, provide 
> guidance on how to avoid the problem, encourages early testing, 
> encourages early implementations, etc. (Very few new WGs are created 
> each year and if the new WG Chair(s) is inexperienced, the Team should 
> provide extra support to the group to make sure they understand the 
> potential `gotchas` and how to avoid them.)

Art, these are important viewpoints, but I don't think this is the 
current view of the AB.  Is there a way that you want to surface these 
viewpoints more formally (e.g. raise an issue, join a Chapter 7 revision 
task force call, join an AB call) so we can have a more complete dialog 
on the +'s/-'s of combining LC and CR.

>
> * Assuming the proposal moves forward, rather than implement it 
> across-the-board, perhaps it would be useful to have a "candidate" 
> period to work out the kinks. It might also be useful to limit the 
> trial to a small set of WGs that agree to test the proposal.

Did you want to raise a formal issue about gradual rollout?

>
> (Did anyone ever compare Process-20051022 versus the proposal with 
> real data?)
>
> -AB
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 15:25:53 UTC