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

Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:59:50 -0400
Message-ID: <54343826.6010805@gmail.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 10/2/14 2:19 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
> On 2014-10-02 09:51, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>> We can make the list public, but we can't make the necessary people 
>> subscribe to the list.
> But, if we don't make the public list, the necessary people definitely 
> won't subscribe :)
> It seems a simple thing to do and if WG Chairs decided to use it, it 
> could be a useful resource to know what was ready for review without 
> wading through a ton of mail - if it caught on, it would be a useful 
> way to solicit feedback. (that feedback would not be on the 
> notification list - the notification list would indicate where the 
> discussion was).

I think the above touches on a few issues related to workflow: 1) using 
a Public list to announce publications that trigger early review (f.ex. 
FPWD) and wide review (LCWD, 2014-preCR, CR); 2) who sends these 
announcements/notifications; and 3) how do groups manage their review 

Re #1, I think I'm already on record for supporting the Public 
notification list (besides such a list being useful for Chairs, it could 
also be useful for other stakeholders (implementers, testing/interop 
groups, app developers, etc.) as well as other Standards Setting 

Re #2, For consistency reasons, it seems like these announcements should 
be done by the Publication team (not Chairs). (One potential wrinkle 
here is the Pub team knowing if a ProcDoc-2014 WD is actually a 
2014-preCR version.)

Re #3, the current model seems to work ok: a) Chairs announce 
transitions and pubs on the chairs list; and b) the Chairs send RfCs to 
the appropriate group. (I suppose it wouldn't be harmful if the Chairs 
also Cc'ed the proposed notification list when they send out their RfCs 
but as you say, we don't want that list to be used for comments and I 
suspect there wouldn't be really complete adherence.)

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 19:00:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:22 UTC