W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Editor's drafts on /TR/… ftw, was Re: new TR tools and editor's drafts?

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:06:46 +0200
Message-ID: <51DA9D46.508@w3.org>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: spec-prod@w3.org
On 03/07/2013 23:58 , L. David Baron wrote:
> So one day turnaround feels more like the exception to me than the
> rule.

Those are all in the CSS WG, and do seem unnaturally long. That's why I 
was asking about specifically lengthy cases: we need to make sure that 
we're solving the problem in such a way that it applies across the board.

>  Even 5 days is long enough that I've likely forgotten about
> it, and might forget to make the announcement to the relevant
> mailing lists, blogs, and twitter accounts.  (And there have
> definitely been cases of neither the editor nor the working group
> being notified when a TR publication happens, so we actually do have
> to remember!)

I certainly agree, that's not the question. My interest is in knowing 
why some groups take so much longer than others.

> It's also mostly the things that involve extra approvals that take
> ridiculous amounts of time, but not entirely.

Things like FPWD and LCWD need some minimal approval, but unless there's 
a problem it shouldn't be more than a few hours (ten years ago it would 
be weeks, but thankfully there have been some optimisations).

I'm not sure that we can shorten the delay to move to CR much (and 
likewise PR) since Director's calls require more scheduling. But I don't 
think that those are the big problems; we can get to them when we've 
made the commoner cases fast.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 11:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:19 UTC