- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:43:03 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
- CC: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
On 2014-10-02 04:30, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 10/1/14 3:21 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>> There could be a Call for Review public mail list.
>
> Agree [and it might even be useful if the `right` people subscribe ;-)].
>
> In case you did not know, the [chairs] list is already used to: 1)
> make FPWD transition requests [rarely do these fail]; 2) announce LC
> publications + explicit RfC from specific group(s); 3) make CR
> transition requests. It would be helpful (vis-à-vis toward getting
> early and wide review) if all three of these (plus ProcDoc-2014 now
> effectively mandates a "RfC for pre-CRs") were announced on a Public
> list.
>
> Unfortunately, the chairs list is Member-confidential and I suspect
> subscriber membership is controlled by consortium staff (i.e. I don't
> think it is an auto-subscribe-able list by Joe Public). I would be
> delighted if everything on that list was automagically forwarded to a
> Public list. However, I suspect typical Public vs. Member
> confidentiality stop energy would prevent that :-(.
Can W3C staff just make this list?
public-wg-call-for-review@w3.org or public-wg-rfc@w3c.org
- posts should only be from WG Chairs and W3C Staff
- notices:
+ Staff sends announcements at: transition requests, "last call"
publications - FPWD and the CRs that have substantive changes or Last
Call (under the old process), notice that work is underway on a charter
+ WG Chairs send RfC on anything the WG would like feedback on or
that they would like to tell the public. e.g. want review on a
particular section, notice that a section is considered stable
This could just be done and WGs use it as they see fit and the process
could later mandate it (if that was wanted). In the meantime, it would
be something WGs and W3C staff could use as a way of asking for reviews
or making general announcements on spec development.
>
> (WRT `the tools will save us`, if WG charter deliverables included
> some type of "interestedGroup" property, then it seems like at least
> some notifications could be automated.)
>
> -AB
>
> [chairs] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 16:44:11 UTC