- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:49:30 +0000
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:21:20 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> > wrote: >> Since when did we start putting the onus on the reviewer that her or >> his feedback is captured? > > Before I started working with W3C in the mid 90's (although as noted below > it is part of a set of checks and balances). Given the scarcity of quality review that seems bad. > Indeed. And we expect the editor to do that to the best of their ability. In > the past, where editors were actually editing a document that was produced > more directly by the whole Working Group, the group itself also assumed some > of that function. > > But editors are not infallible, and the new model Working Group tends to be > less hands-on about directing the editor. I believe largely at the perceived > behest of a handful of high-profile editors such as yourself. > > So in practice the necessity for a commenter to check that their comment was > understood correctly and correctly acted on has become a little more > prominent in the overall balance of how things are done. Sad to learn this is how WebApps tries to run things. Both as editor and reviewer I find this unacceptable. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 15:50:06 UTC