- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:32:03 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
* fantasai wrote: >And if I had come up with a Suboptimal Design Flaw, you would say >there should be a rule that Suboptimal Design Flaw reviews should >be done at an earlier phase. :) You'd really want a Review Everything >Sooner Faster rule. Late reviews are the natural result from omitting design rationale from drafts, not caring much about properly responding to early feedback, and not actively seeking out early feedback, like asking horizontal review groups to review prior to last calls. The net effect is that flaws are caught only very late, meaning there will be additional last calls, and that in turn means it's probably better to wait even longer to review a draft as by the time of a first or second last call the design has not stabilized yet. Of course, at the time of the third last call it's like- ly too late to comment, so overall you don't get much review. In case of the CSS Working Group, it doesn't even matter much whether you review in this decade or in the next one, for many features. To avoid this self-defeating and disenfranchising effect we have things like schedules, milestones, and process requirements, that allow people to synchronize. If the first last call actually meant a Working Group's done all it can to gather feedback and all issues are addressed, it just wants to give the community one last chance to check if earlier feedback has been missed or has not been addressed as agreed upon, rather than, oh it kinda looks feature-complete so people should check it out, then you would obviously get your feedback earlier and more predictably. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 00:32:32 UTC