Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule

> Alastair Campbell <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>
> 30 March 2017 at 10:08
>
> Gregg wrote:
>
> > To keep publishing new versions when the comments have not been 
> cleared from the last is not good practice and not considerate of 
> reviewers.
>
> > I do not understand the rationale
>
> IMO: to enable some parallel working.
>
> For example, the next version could add one or more SCs, which would 
> be fresh for reviewers.
>
> It does require careful highlighting of what is changed in each 
> version, and the status of comments should be apparent (i.e. in the 
> github issue, say when it has been addressed).
>
Thanks Alastair - yes, this model is more in line with more iterative 
specs and allows us to progress (and monitor progress)
in a more timely manner.
>
> Personally, I advocated a publish-all then whittle down approach [1], 
> but no one else commented on that.
>
There were pros and cons to that, so on reflection we decided the 
current model would be preferable (with its own inherent pros/cons also!).

Thanks

Josh
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
> 1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/0043.html
>

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie

Received on Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:14:58 UTC