Re: Objection to not formally addressing comment

(Dan I am cc-ing you since I mention one of your comments [1] although I am 
objecting concerning the processing of one of my comments, see earlier in the 
thread [2])

Karl:
> But in short,

> - the OWL WG didn't reply to invitation to comment when done earlier
> - Comments were made 6 weeks after the closing date for reviews.

all true - and I certainly agree that WebOnt should have done better with 
getting a LC review in. However, that is not the point of this procedural 
objection.

From the process doc:
7.2 General Requirements for Advancement
http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#transition-reqs
[[
... the Working Group MUST:
...
5. Formally address all issues raised about the document since the previous 
step. In practice, once a Working Group wishes to advance to Candidate 
Recommendation or beyond, the Director expects positive documentation that 
issues have been formally addressed (e.g., in an issues list that shows their 
disposition).
]]

and 
7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities
http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#doc-reviews
[[
Ordinarily, reviewers SHOULD NOT raise substantive technical issues about a 
technical report after the end of a Last Call review period. However, this 
does occur, and as stated above, a Working Group's requirement to formally 
address those issues extends until the end of a Proposed Recommendation 
review period. However, to allow the Working Group to make progress on a 
technical report, the Working Group MAY decline to make substantive changes 
to address issues raised between the end of a Last Call review period and 
publication of a Recommendation. A reviewer MAY register a formal objection.
]]

I think there is sufficient clarity that both me and Dan had a reasonable 
expectation that our late comments would at least be addressed to the extent 
of following the process - i.e. formally addressing, if only with a "sorry 
too late" and then allowing us to object, which I certainly would have done, 
and Dan's "I'm not satisfied" suggests he would have done (in fact Dan's 
message could be seen as a formal objection).

The point of the suggested resolution is that it is perhaps not too late to: 
admit that you are procedurally at fault; to stick to your guns; and not make 
any substantive changes in light of both my comment and Dan's comment and 
draw any substantive formal objections (such as [3]) concerning these issues 
(and any others) to the attention of the CR reviewers at all levels 
(including the director). Personally I would hope that the director would 
uphold these objections and require the WG to consider redesign.

I would think this procedural objection less watertight if the CR had come 
very shortly after the comments ...

Jeremy

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0024
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0016
[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0014

Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 04:04:49 UTC