Re: Announcing FPWD pubs on p-review-announce [Was: Re: Comments on: W3C Process2015]

07.04.2015, 09:35, "Coralie Mercier" <coralie@w3.org>:
> [This is in response to:
>    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Apr/0023.html
> ... quoted below. It should be threaded in the mail archive and your MUA.]
>
> Hello all,
>
> I heard there were discussions on this list about making use of
> public-review-announce which match my team's interests in looking at how
> to publicise work, encourage wide-review etc.
>
> So, I just joined the CG and will now receive e-mail directly.
>
> Who in this group, or on this list, would be the most knowledgeable
> person(s) I could talk to

ArtB

> and would be willing to talk to me

Me, David Singer, MikeC, ArtB would all be candidates. Since we're in the same timezone a long way ahead of the rest, I'll look for you now…

> and brief me on the key aspects?

Cheers and thank you…

chaals

> Thank you.
> Coralie Mercier, Acting Head of W3C Marketing & Communications
>
> ========
> The list exists,
> Public-review-announce@w3.org
> As noted it is little used, but this may be due to it being entirely
> invisible. It took me over an hour to find it and that I could only do by
> tracing back the message history when it was being developed. It is not at
> all visible on the W3 home page nor does it seem to appear under the
> "participation" links. It is not even mentioned under Specification Review
> (http://www.w3.org/participate/review#specs ).
>
> In the discussion that led to the list's creation, it was noted that it
> should not be totally automatic because the goal was for a Working Group
> to identify important drafts on which they wanted comments as distinct
>  from drafts that are recording run of the mill decisions. I would also
> note that Process 2014 has far fewer Maturity level transitions for which
> Review makes sense. There is only Working Draft and Candidate
> Recommendation. There is no LC and CR is too late so that leaves only WD
> and, as noted above, with the exception of FPWD, subsequent WDs should not
> automatically be put on the list or list will be flooded. I agree that
> automatic is good, but perhaps making it the automation be part of the new
> WD publishing system, check a box and add a comment, would suffice in the
> automation area.
>
> Steve Z
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
>>  [mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com]
>>  Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:38 PM
>>  To: David Singer
>>  Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru; Arthur Barstow; Phillips, Addison; public-
>>  w3process@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
>>  Subject: RE: Announcing FPWD pubs on p-review-announce [Was: Re:
>>  Comments on: W3C Process2015]
>> Agree, I would rather rely on automation than process.  Maybe the PD
>>  should
>>  just say that the team setup and maintain an automated mechanism to
>>  inform
>>  people of FPWD LCWD Transition requests/Transitions Exclusion
>>  opportunities
>> ... in  channel that doesn't have anything else on it.
>> -----Original Message-----
>>  From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
>>  Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:33 PM
>>  To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
>>  Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru; Arthur Barstow; Phillips, Addison; public-
>>  w3process@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
>>  Subject: Re: Announcing FPWD pubs on p-review-announce [Was: Re:
>>  Comments on: W3C Process2015]
>>>  On Apr 6, 2015, at 15:24 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
>>  <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>  Actually, I believe there is one.  Trouble is few use it.
>> has to be automatic for all the obvious events
>> FPWD
>>  LCWD
>>  Transition requests/Transitions
>>  Exclusion opportunities
>>  Incoming liaisons, maybe
>>>  Does the Process Doc have to mandate it as the mechanism to inform the
>>  world of the desire of a WG for wide review?
>> I would hate to mandate it.  But making it an easy tool is good.
>> If we do the auto stuff and allow chairs/team to add, then everyone would
>>  subscribe.
>> If all emails indicate the end-date of the request, we could even have a
>>  living
>>  page of current requests.
>> Document:  Title + URL
>>  Event:  (LCWD, FPWD, Review request…)
>>  End-date:  XX-XX-XX
>>  Source: (the WG)
>> …
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
>>>  Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 3:15 PM
>>>  To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
>>>  Cc: Arthur Barstow; Phillips, Addison; public-w3process@w3.org;
>>>  public-i18n-core@w3.org
>>>  Subject: Re: Announcing FPWD pubs on p-review-announce [Was: Re:
>>>  Comments on: W3C Process2015]
>>>
>>>  we desperately need a “this is a good time to review” list (‘life
>>>  events’ list, transitions, excl. opps, reviews opps., etc.)
>>>>  On Apr 6, 2015, at 13:58 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I'll be forwarding this to the people who actually do things like
>>>>  this, in the hopes that helps. It would be really useful…
>>>>
>>>>  cheers
>>>>
>>>>  06.04.2015, 22:55, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>:
>>>>>  On 4/6/15 4:04 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
>>>>>>  I agree with Chaals that FPWD is a good time to start the review
>>  process.
>>>>>  Me three and to facilitate the FPWD discovery part, several months
>>>>>  ago
>>>>>  ([ab]) I proposed the Pub Team `automagically` announce FPWD
>>>>>  publications on [p-r-a] but that has never been done :-(.
>>>>>
>>>>>  -AB
>>>>>
>>>>>  [ab]
>>>>>  <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0065.
>>>>>  h
>>>>>  tml> [p-r-a]
>>>>>  <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-announce/>
>
> ========
>
> --
>   Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
> mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/

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

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 09:53:18 UTC