Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

On 01/10/2014 15:10, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/1/14 9:01 AM, Nigel Megitt wrote:
>> Specifically the need to
>> demonstrate wide review seemed to be vague, and triggered a "we aren't
>> sure what view the Director will take" response from staff, which, while
>> true, wasn't ideal for them or us.
>
>Yes I agree the review process isn't particularly clear [and, BTW, some
>argue that is a feature] and that related Best Practices / Guideline
>material would be helpful. I included such feedback in my questionnaire
>about ProcDoc-2014 and AFAIK, [1] is the closest thing but it doesn't
>really appear to give WGs any specific guidance.
>
>Virginie agreed to lead a "Spec systematization and consistency" effort
>(see [2]) and it seems to me the scope of that effort could include
>fleshing out some "wide review BPs and guidelines". If that effort
>considers such a doc as out of scope, I would be willing to help create
>such a doc (and would welcome your input, as well as others).

Happy to try to help.

>
>> We chose to issue a new WD and put out as big a call for review as
>> possible. But there's been quite a bit of debate about how the process
>> could assist here.
>
>I think what you did in [3] and [4] were really good and mostly what I
>would do as a chair, although I would have made a few minor changes:
>
>* Make it clear in the Subject you seek feedback on a pre-CR version of
>the spec and be explicit about the deadline. For example:
>
>   RfC: pre CR version of @Spec; deadline DD MMM
>
>* Make it clear in the text of the e-mail the group considers the spec
>is feature complete and that before you publish a CR you are first
>seeking comments.

Thanks, both good suggestions that I'll use next time.

>
>KUTWG!
>
>-AB
>
>[1] <https://www.w3.org/wiki/ProcessTransition2014>
>[2] 
><https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_synchro_consistency_p

>lan>
>[3] <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2014JulSep/0150.html>
>[4] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Sep/0099.html>
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 14:57:54 UTC