Re: Fw: Proposed revised schedule

A couple of thoughts:

I don't structure the schedule around what's not impossible, I structure 
it around what's likely. So I'd like the question instead to be, will the 
editor's draft in April be sufficient for a FPWD?

My experience so far is that our first draft of the Note was targetted for 
January 22. But with one thing and another, it looks like we'll be hitting 
3 - 4 weeks later. Depending on when in April, May and June, the gap can 
be as large as 2 months, or as small as a month, which, at the lower end, 
is the same order of magnitude as what we're hitting for the Note.

Plus I figured we'd like to have the f2f before going to FPWD. And that it 
would bring up things. 

But I'm open to other suggestions. 
        Mez





Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> 
02/08/2007 03:11 PM

To
Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
cc
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject
Re: Fw: Proposed revised schedule






On 2007-02-08 09:35:30 -0500, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> April 2007 
> Editor's draft of recommendations
> May 2007
> Third face-to-face meeting 
> June 2007
> First public Working Drafts of Recommendations;
> Last Call of Working Group Note. 

What keeps us from using the April 2007 draft of the recs as a FPWD?

I do know the expectations in an FPWD; I'm wondering what
expectation we have about an editor's draft that makes us put it
into our publicly shared schedule, but keeps us from submitting it
as an FPWD.

Cheers,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>