Re: Issue-144 Suggested updates to clarify Wide Review in Process2014

This approach makes sense to me.

Jeff

On 11/16/2014 11:53 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> See inline below
>
> Steve Zilles
>
> *From:*Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 16, 2014 5:43 AM
> *To:* Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org
> *Cc:* Michael Champion (Michael.Champion@microsoft.com)
> *Subject:* Re: Issue-144 Suggested updates to clarify Wide Review in 
> Process2014
>
> Steve,
>
> These are all great suggestions, but do not address a part of the Issue.
>
> Chairs are also looking for a means to make it more routine - e.g. a 
> standard list to send documents - and the team has responded with such 
> a list.
>
> I think we need to add comments about such a list.  For example, we 
> could add a sentence of the form: "W3C has create a list 
> public-review-announce@w3.org <mailto:public-review-announce@w3.org> 
> which Chairs might want to use as a component of wide review.  Merely 
> posting to this list, without ensuring that actual reviews have been 
> done, however, would not be sufficient by itself to achieve wide review."
>
> */[SZ] Actually, I did consider the announcement list when I was 
> proposing the changes to Wide Reivew. Because such announcements are 
> optional, I did not see a need to put the existence of the list in the 
> Process (which is mostly MUSTs and SHOULDs). I am not, however, 
> opposed to adding a pointer to the list. I think, however, that 
> modifying the first sentence phrase, "/*have had adequate notice of 
> the progress of the Working Group and ..." TO "have had adequate 
> notice of the progress of the Working Group (for example, using 
> public-review-announce@w3.org <mailto:public-review-announce@w3.org>) 
> and ..." would be a better solution. The issue of sufficiency is 
> address elsewhere in the suggested modification.*//*
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On 11/15/2014 2:22 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
>     With respect to Issue 144, there was a discussion in a break out
>     session at TPAC 2014[1] that noted that Wide Review was updated in
>     Process 2014 to better insure that (1) reviews by a wide audience
>     actually occurred versus just being announced and (2) reviews were
>     undertaken early enough, when individual sections became stable,
>     that comments and suggested changes could and would be
>     incorporated where they were appropriate. It was observed that the
>     current text of section 7.2.3.1 Wide Review [2] does not do a very
>     good job of making these objectives clear. The following changes
>     to the first paragraph of 7.2.3.1 are suggested to clarify these
>     objectives.
>
>     Process2014 text:
>
>     ===============
>
>     /7.2.3.1 Wide Review/
>
>     The requirements for /wide review/ are not precisely defined by
>     the W3C Process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of
>     stakeholders of the Web community, including the general public,
>     have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group and
>     thereby an opportunity to comment on the specification. Before
>     approving transitions, the Director will consider who has been
>     explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the
>     document, who has provided comments, the record of requests to and
>     responses from reviewers, especially groups identified as
>     dependencies in the charter, and seek evidence of clear
>     communication to the general public about appropriate times and
>     which content to review.
>
>     =============
>
>     Four changes are proposed:
>
>     1.Change the following phrase in the first sentence of the
>     paragraph, "and thereby an opportunity to comment on the
>     specification" TO "and were able to actually perform reviews of
>     and provide comments on the specification"
>
>     2.Change the final phrase of the second sentence of the paragraph,
>     "and seek evidence of clear communication to the general public
>     about appropriate times and which content to review" TO "and seek
>     evidence of clear communication to the general public about
>     appropriate times and which content to review _and whether such
>     reviews actually occurred_"
>
>     3.Change the initial phrase of the second sentence of the
>     paragraph, "the Director will consider who has been explicitly
>     offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document," to "the
>     Director will consider who has been explicitly offered a
>     reasonable opportunity to review the document, _when those offers
>     were made,_"
>
>     4.Following the first sentence, ending with "opportunity to
>     comment on the specification", add the following sentence, "A
>     second objective is to encourage groups to request reviews early
>     enough that comments and suggested changes may still be reasonably
>     incorporated in response to the review."
>     OR
>     "A second objective is to encourage Groups to seek early review of
>     those portions of the document that have become stable enough to
>     allow meaningful review, being careful to identify which portions
>     those are in the review request."
>     OR
>     "A second objective is to encourage Groups to seek early review of
>     identified portions of the document that have become stable enough
>     to allow meaningful review."
>
>     OR
>
>     A second objective is to encourage Groups to seek early,
>     incremental review of identified portions of the document that are
>     stable enough for meaningful review but are still flexible enough
>     to allow incorporation of comments and suggested changes where
>     that is appropriate."
>
>     [1]
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2014/SessionIdeas#What_is_Wide_Review_and_How_do_we_achieve_it
>
>
>     [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#wide-review
>     <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#wide-review>
>