W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2015

Draft plan on how to get documents reviewed with new process

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 06:48:21 +0000
To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1D162B90@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
(Sorry for cross posting - but relevant for the WG as well as the TF)

Back in December, the WebRTC Working Group and the Media Capture Task
Force agreed to adopt the new W3C Process for their documents [1]
(except for Media Capture and Streams which would move to it after its
upcoming Last Call).

As explained before that decision was adopted [2], the new Process
removes the Last Call status, and instead asks Working Groups to
demonstrate wide review of their documents before requesting transition
to Candidate Recommendation.

As Martin requested [3], here is how we plan to approach this process of 
requesting wide reviews without a Last Call:

For each of our documents, and informed by the dependencies identified
in our current [4] and potentially next [5] charter, as well as by the
normative references in the said documents, we would identify well ahead 
of any call for review which groups we think ought to give comments on 
the document, and in particular, try to identify which part(s) of the 
document they are likely to want to review.

Once that list established, we would contact the chairs of the said
groups to confirm their interest in reviewing the document, and to
determine which sections they need to be stable before they can make
that review.

With that information, once the group determines that a given set of
sections are likely to be stable, we would then ask the relevant groups
to give their reviews. Ideally, the number of groups that need the
entirety of the document to be stable before review would be small.

This also means that once a section deemed stable has been reviewed, we
would need to re-request reviews if we ended up having to make
significant changes to it; also, upon adding new features, we might have 
to revisit our list of reviewers.

As a preliminary exercise, Dom has started a matrix of which specs, and
which features in these specs, ought to be reviewed by which groups:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/153sCs9PvTxOPJ7Pz5W06yXc_ZIcAhl1W2viJCJACmmU/edit?pli=1#gid=0

That matrix is not complete or definitive in any way, but might help
give an idea on how we propose to proceed with these wide reviews.

Feedback and suggestions are welcomed.

Stefan and Harald as chairs

1. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2014Dec/0081.html 
and 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2014Dec/0033.html
2. 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2014Dec/0005.html
3. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2014Dec/0006.html
4. http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc-charter.html
5. http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-charter/webrtc-charter.html
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 06:48:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:42 UTC