Review timing Re: Normative references and stable documents

- Michael.Champion@, singer@

See also the Wiki page on the topic: https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview

(I guess I should be chasing up how to get this linked from somewhere useful, such as the "guide" or the "getting to Rec" pages)

cheers

10.10.2014, 00:47, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>:
> On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:02 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>  It would be great to start harvesting from this set of threads some concrete suggestions for changing the formal W3C process and informal practices to address some of acknowledged problems.  Just to start things off:

>>  3.       We could revisit the very thorny question of how to ensure that owners of specs and products that depend on a W3C spec actually review changes early in the process before changes are set in stone.  Hixie’s proposal that specs and dependencies be changed in lockstep is interesting but could not possibly scale up to include all stakeholders at Web scale. And as Daniel Glazman has pointed out, this simply doesn’t work for many enterprises who want to control the rhythm of  their own infrastructure and app updates themselves. But I’m sure we can do better than we do now.
>
> It is very hard, in general to assess how much dependency there is on something, and even harder to enumerate who is depending.

Yes. It is helpful to note what the Working Group *thinks* is stable, and request reviews as work is stabilised.

Hopefully this will also encourage *better* communication between groups who have dependencies on each other, although the general problem doesn't have a perfect solution. "Implementors should be part of standardisation" is a true statement, but at best hopelessly naive as a policy that aims to address the issue in reality.

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 11:27:16 UTC