RE: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

This sounds great. It would be cool if editors ping the relevant list as working drafts get updated, just so everyone can use the lists as an ambient feed of what's going on. But an actual CFC process seems unnecessary.


________________________________
From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 12:18
To: Marcos Caceres
Cc: public-webapps; Arthur Barstow
Subject: Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review


For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there has been reached, this sounds like a good idea.

Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a spec such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached again.

/ Jonas

On Jan 27, 2014 7:49 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com<mailto:w3c@marcosc.com>> wrote:
Hi Art,
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.

Kind regards,
Marcos

--
Marcos Caceres


On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com<mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com> (mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com<mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>)> wrote:
> > On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
> > > I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
> > >
> > > The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by interacting with the implementors.
> > >
> > > We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term after the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us to take more conservative approach in publishing LC.
> > >
> > > That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing LC.
> > >
> > > Any comments would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks for the update Jungkee!
> >
> > I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD and to continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly implemented) is good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC for the WD.
>
> We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll request it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jungkee
>
>
> > -Thanks, Art
> >
> >
> > > [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
> > > [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jungkee Song