Re: Length of LC comment period [Was: Ready for LC on the various drafts I edit]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we already have multiple implementations of a spec, I think 
> > > > > the spirit of the Recommendation track process suggests a 
> > > > > shorter LC period (say 2 months given the time of the year) and 
> > > > > then (assuming no substantive comments) moving the spec to 
> > > > > Candidate.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't realistically think I'd have time to address the likely 
> > > > volume of comments in two months, since I am also dealing with 
> > > > HTML5's last call comments in the WHATWG and will likely be 
> > > > starting work on some more specifications in January.
> > > 
> > > I don't think we need to address all Last Call comments by the end 
> > > of the LC period - that's just the deadline to submit them.
> > 
> > I don't think there's any point having an arbitrary deadline if we're 
> > not going to do something after the deadline. My goal would be to go 
> > to CR the day after the deadline passes.
> 
> The LC deadline is a deadline for commentors, not for the Working Group. 
> While what you suggest is a good goal to shoot for, no matter how long 
> you make the LC period you cannot preclude the possibility of 100 Last 
> Call comments coming in on the day before the deadline.

Sure; but if I've scheduled for it, I can deal with a hundred comments in 
a day -- that's not a problem.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 08:55:16 UTC