Re: checkpoint on Note text for FPWD discussion Tuesday

On 2007-02-15 16:05:14 -0500, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> Tyler said he'd checkpoint the text of the Note by close of business 
> yesterday (Wednesday), so team members would have a chance to read it over 
> before our regular Tuesday meeting, where we will discuss bringing this 
> text to First Public Working Draft: 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/note/

Looking at that text, it's lacking the use case rework (my fault, as
I sent the update late [1]; not critical path, though I'd have liked
to see this in the first draft), a resolution to ISSUE-10 (I owe
text on that, and hope to finally supply that today; I said it would
be tough to get it in on time, and it turned out impossible).  The
draft is also lacking an abstract (ooops; this should be easily
fixed, though).

I'm therefore suggesting that we let the publication schedule slip
once more, since ISSUE-10 has the ability to provoke questions that
might take us a bunch of time to respond to, so I do consider that
issue to be on the critical path for publication. Sorry.

It might still be worth keeping the note on the agenda for the call
to discuss (and hopefully resolve) any remaining critical issues
that people have; that agendum might be very short. We could use the
next call to have a quick show of hands for moving to FPWD, or even
do that decision by e-mail if we're confident that we don't need
further discussion.

> While there's process around going to FPWD of a Note, the only
> practical question seems to be having enough text for people to
> comment on, and having it say something reasonable such that the
> comments we get will be useful, as well as doing it early enough
> in the process so comments can impact it. I believe we're at that
> stage in the Note. Please raise any issues you have with that
> before the Tuesday meeting, if at all possible. 

As I said above, I think resolving ISSUE-10 would significantly help
to keep some commentary at bay that would take us more time to deal
with than it's worth, in particular since we seem to agree anyway.

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007Feb/0135.html

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

Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 09:33:15 UTC