RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC

I agree that it is too early to call things at risk

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:51:27 +0200  White<jjwhite@ets.org> wrote ---- 

     
  
     From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] 
 Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:05 PM
 
 
 
 
   Can we have  any "at risk" SC  placed in the draft in the main section with an editors note with the issues that need to be addressed. I do not think they should be a separate "at risk " section.
 [Jason] I thought the prevailing view was that “at risk” wouldn’t be the right concept to use at this early stage of development.
 I don’t mind how the editors decide to distinguish proposals that are known to be problematic from those which are on track for inclusion, but I think the distinction should be drawn in the draft so that reviewers can comment and, potentially, help by suggesting solutions. I also agree with Gregg that the problems identified with proposals should be noted (e.g., it isn’t reliably testable in its current form, it might not apply to all Web content, it’s too vague/ambiguous as written, etc.).
  
 
 
 
 
 
  This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
 
 Thank you for your compliance.