Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

On 2014-10-01 07:57, Nigel Megitt wrote:
> 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

There could be a Call for Review public mail list.  Reviews don't happen 
there (they happen where the post points people to send comments), but 
notifications do happen there.  So people who don't want to follow the 
WG list but do want to know when there are significant drafts from any 
WG to review could subscribe to the notifications list.  This would 
allow a WG to ask for review of a particular section or to say they 
think some section is finished.

If that became popular, having done notifications several times there 
could be some evidence of having sought wide review.



>>   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 19:22:25 UTC