W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > February 2014

Re: New draft - please review

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:05:02 -0500
Message-ID: <52F5042E.1000102@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
Chaals,

Thanks for the revision.

A few questions/comments.

1. I think the description is a bit confusing around 7.4 (CR) and 7.4.1 
(Revised CR).  It might be useful to combine them somehow into one 
Section.  Some of the confusions are:

  * There is a different list of "MUST do's".
  * Revised CR is not a formal state, yet it has its own treatment.
  * In Section 7.4 a possible next step is "Return to CR", but you
    really mean "Become Revised CR".

I don't have a specific proposal to fix, I just note it is a bit confusing.

2. Once entering PR, I assume that the WG can no longer drop any 
features.  If I am correct, it is not clear to me that this is clear in 
the document.

3. Previously I pointed out that CR requires demonstrating how the test 
plan was achieved; even though there was no provision for a test plan in 
earlier stages.  I expected that the fix was to add a test plan.  
Instead you dropped the requirement to demonstrate how the test plan was 
achieved.  Either approach would have addressed my issue, but the AB and 
community should discuss whether they are comfortable with your selection.

Jeff

On 2/5/2014 9:03 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 03:11:15 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile 
> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just pushed a new draft: 
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/20fb4f012006/tr.html
>
> And I just pushed an update to that:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/acebbefd27bb/tr.html
>
> There are no significant changes but I fixed the date (now 5 Feb) and 
> there are a few editorial tweaks, to reduce confusion between the two 
> quite different drafts dated 2 February.
>
>> Please review because it incorporates significant changes since 
>> previous drafts.
>>
>> The most important changes are an explanation of what is required to 
>> publish a revised Candidate Rec, and the reinstatement of a Proposed 
>> Rec phase to clarify the process from Candidate Recommendation to 
>> Recommendation.
>>
>> These changes are intended to close issues 76, 77 and 84.
>>
>> The changelogs at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/ provide details, but the 
>> big changes are introduction of a new section 7.5 and changes to 7.4 
>> and 7.6 to match. It is possible that I missed something, or was 
>> over-enthusiastic in bringing everything into line, so problems may 
>> be as simple as grammar issues or as complex as unclear or 
>> inappropriate interactions of requirements.
>>
>> With this draft I hope to have closed all the outstanding issues we 
>> except those relating to incorporating the chapter into a complete 
>> document and the deferred issue-6…
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> chaals
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 16:05:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:17 UTC