- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:31:25 +0400
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:49:30 +0400, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > 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. I think what's bad is that it is difficult to get quality review, good editors, and excellent contributions from the working group. But I don't see an obvious fix for that. Indeed, the point of soliciting review is because it seems unlikely that even the best set of contributors working together will always be right. >> 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. I think we're misunderstanding each other. This isn't how Webapps tries to run things, nor any kind of formal policy. It is a reflection on the imperfect world we live in. It's unclear what you think we should be doing differently. If you believe we can simply insist that editors do a perfect job of capturing feedback and responding to it correctly, we will have to disagree. If you think that reviewers should expect the editor and the Working Group to make a serious good faith effort to understand and respond correctly to a review comment we are in violent agreement. As an editor and a chair, I find it unfortunate when a reviewer doesn't follow up their comment to ensure that it was clear and that the Working Group acted on it in a satisfactory way, because while I would like to trust that this is the case I am more confident after checking. But given the absence of an enforcement mechanism, that's just another of the unfortunate things that happens (and in general I would prefer that than a too-strict enforcement mechanism). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 18:32:01 UTC