- From: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:48:26 +0000
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 06:10:46PM -0400, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > 1. I see nothing wrong in marking the spec in a way that shows that > only certain chapters have changed. FWIW, I think it's more common that a change impacts many places distributed across a specification, so I don't really see how this could be used in practice. A 'diff' is what is generally most useful. > 2. I see nothing wrong in sending the spec out for wide review and > opining with wide reviewers that the WG believes that they only need > to review those chapters that have changed. That's what the patent policy call for exclusions do anyway, they apply only to changes wrt the previous publication. So no change here. > 3. If a horizontal review group sees the logic of why they only need to > review certain chapters; they provide that limited review; and > conclude that the spec has no issues (even though they chose not to > look at "Chapter 10"), then I think W3C should accept that as a > completed horizontal review. But, if an objection arises > nonetheless, the objection still needs to be addressed. Again, that's current practice, IMHO.
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2019 07:48:30 UTC