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

Re: w3process-ISSUE-86 (end of review?): When should the PR review end? [Document life cycle (ch 7)]

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:40:59 -0800
Message-ID: <52FEC5AB.7080000@linux.intel.com>
To: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 2/14/2014 12:12 PM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue 
Tracker wrote:
> w3process-ISSUE-86 (end of review?): When should the PR review end? [Document life cycle (ch 7)]
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/86
> Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile
> On product: Document life cycle (ch 7)
> In the thread from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0015.html Ian, Wayne and I discussed the expression of, and the actual timing of the end of PR with relation to exclusion periods. For ages the new draft has said review should end at least 3 days after CR (used to imply the beginning of the exclusion period), but by beginning the 28 days at least 35 days after the publication.
> I propose to say it "should end at least 10 days after the last exclusion period". I think this is clearer, and 10 days is better than 3 (we'll see if the AC is OK with that much time - I don't really care how long they want to wait so I don't think it is a big deal to change it)

Is it a SHOULD?  Would we ever want the AC review ending before the end 
of the exclusion period?   I assume it was SHOULD to avoid mandating the 
10 days after.   Why not just: "MUST be after the end of the last 
Exclusion Opportunity " and exactly how much extra time could be worked 
out through experience.

Just a suggestion - the current wording is fine - (given 28 days for CR 
review and 28 for PR - it can't end too much before anyway.)

Thanks for all the changes!  It's looking good :)

Received on Saturday, 15 February 2014 01:41:28 UTC

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