Re: CfC: create a public list to announce new publications; deadline Oct 15

On 10/8/14 5:35 PM, timeless@gmail.com wrote:
> David wrote:
>> A) Use this list when this is a good time for people outside the mailing list to do a review; the document is readable, and so on. Yes, you can ask for review whenever and as often as you like, but beware, people have a limited energy for reviewing the same document multiple times. Choose wisely.
> +1
>
>> B) You MUST indicate a deadline for the review of the document, and the document MUST be stable (at that URL) while people are trying to review it. Sure you can keep revising at a different URL, but don’t force people to critique a moving target (but if there is a bleeding edge that is not the document, you MUST tell them where to find it as well).
> +1
>
>> C) It’s fine if some sections are marked as TBD or half-baked, and so on: just please set reviewer’s expectations correctly. (An early review might be to ask for the overall architecture, data-flows, and approach, with details of the APIs or markup very provisional, for example).
> Sure

I think A), B) and C) are all good suggestions that should be included 
as BPs or reflected in the RfC template in 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview>. (Note I've already done a 
first pass to include the above comments. Please do review this document 
and update it directly).


>> I would still like it if the list of documents open for review were kept on a page somewhere (and I bet it’s not hard).
> Yep

Again, I think that would be a nice enhancement [that should not block 
this CfC] and I'd be delighted if you two and/or others lead that effort.

(Perhaps this is something that could be fleshed out via Virginie's 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_synchro_consistency_plan> 
project, which is covering point #3 "tools" in 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities#New_demands_on_the_consortium>)


>> I suggest it be named public-review (that is what it is for).
> Possibly public-review-announce
> But either works for me.

I still don't care much about the name although since it appears we will 
expect RfC announcements (by Chairs, Staff, Editors) Cc'ed or Bcc'ed to 
this new list, I prefer both of the above to the strawman proposals in 
the CfC (that said, I tend to favor the shorter of the two proposals above).


>> “This list is solely for the announcement of public reviews; discussion happens on the public mailing lists of the concerned groups.”
> Yes
>
>> I suggest therefore that it’s something chairs and editors can have something sent to, reply-to is always set, and other attempts to send to the list will fail. This is not a place for discussion.
> Yes

Sounds good (although I suspect creating and managing some type of 
Chairs + Staff + Editors ACL list probably isn't worth the effort 
compared to handling a few `stray` emails. F.ex. what does "Editor" mean 
in a world where we use CVS, wikis, Hg, Github, ...)

-Thanks, AB

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 12:49:06 UTC