- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:34:00 -0800
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 11/27/13 5:28 AM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com> 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). I've rarely seen a LC produce wide review, or what I think of as a 'wide review'. 4-6 weeks may be enough to achieve wide-enough review within the folks involved in W3C activities on a daily basis. For the wider community of web experts and interested parties this is just far too short. > >* 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. To some extent, yes, the new CR/LCCR is now preceded by an implicit and undefined Review stage that somehow makes it far more likely the former will 'stick'. So one could argue we didn't eliminate LC as much as renamed it 'wide review' and left its implementation up to WGs?
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 16:34:30 UTC