Re: review process [was: identify...]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:

> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Jan/0226.html
> 
> Strictly speaking, that was not addressed to the HTML WG [...]
> If you want to oblige the editor/WG to respond, please forward it
> to www-html-editor.

Can't do that: not up to me to do so.  (I'll ask Eliot to forward it
himself, if he wishes.)

> >   (a) I don't expect a response.
> 
> Very well. That's certainly up to you.
> 
> You risk the editor/WG assuming that you're satisfied, but that's
> your choice.

You've missed the point - but that's my fault for not being as clear
as I might have been.  I don't expect satisfaction.

> >   (b) If the response is, uh, unsatisfactory, *I* can't escalate.
> 
> You can make your dissatisfaction known (clarify/appeal, in
> terms of http://www.w3.org/2000/02/procdia/), which obliges
> the editor/WG to either continue to negotiate or note
> your outstanding dissent at the next step.

It's a pity you haven't understood why this model is fatally flawed.

> >   (c) That is, without being a nuisance or jerk or both.
> 
> I don't see how saying "no, I'm not convinced" or "no, that
> change doesn't address my request" is rude.

Rudeness isn't the issue.  It's intransigence.

> I have been able to help some people get satisfaction, as have
> other W3C team members. I don't make any guarantees; as you note:
> 
> > (Why?  Because even though you have earned my respect many
> > times over, you are still not entitled to my trust.)

You've characteristically mistaken my meaning, but this time I won't
clarify.

> | Nope.  I (R in the diagram) can't even expect a response from E 
> | within a time frame suitable to *me*.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that... you are owed a response 
> before the spec advances to the next stage. 

What is your policy for dealing with a flood?  If you don't have one,
you'll need one PDQ, and once you have one, you'll realize that my
time frame must of necessity be irrelevant to the response.  That is,
the only policy that *works* is where E replies (if at all) at his
convenience.  It will take just one flood to bring this lesson home.

> We haven't nailed down the exact timing, but I would think that
> after two weeks to a month with no response, you should feel free
> to send a reminder.

Please don't waste time over this detail.  You won't be doing anyone
any favors, least of all E's in a position to be harrassed.

> The Director takes ultimate responsibility for all the outstanding
> dissent when the spec goes to the next stage.

Yep.  As I feared.  And, as I remember.

> | Now, figure out why this is *normal* for me, but - somehow! - not
> | for you.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by that. It works the same way for me.

I've already despaired of ever conveying the point here.

> |  (Hint: W#C processes are *closed*)
> 
> If you mean that W3C processes are not 100% open, then I must agree.
> If you mean that W3C processes are 100% closed, then I disagree.

A WG is informed by the Liaison that their WD in its present form is
unacceptable to the Director.  The Liaison thereupon "submits" a new
proposal.  This is otherwise known as an attempt to -aahem- "explain
the thinking behind the specifications."  There is, of course, no
cognizance of the WG member who asks:

  I'm having a lot of trouble telling this from simply being told
  how to design the spec.  Could you explain the difference?

That's what I mean.


Arjun

Received on Friday, 18 February 2000 20:12:46 UTC