- From: Lynn Andrea Stein <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:34:11 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 08:47, Lynn Andrea Stein wrote: > > Also, much as I want to respect the schedule of this document/working > > group, I for one know that the timing of this particular comment period > > was approximately pessimal. Perhaps it was equally difficult for others > > (and certainly it was not as previously advertised). > > Not advertised? I don't understand what you mean by that. > Here are the ways that I can think of that > we've tried to advertise that > everybody should be reviewing the REQDOC: No, I was told 0) The reqdoc would be ready for review 14 days in advance of the first f2f 1) The reqdoc would be ready for review a week in advance of the first f2f 2) The reqdoc would be ready for review at the first f2f 3) The reqdoc would be ready for review shortly after the first f2f The first reqdoc draft I saw was dated 2/7. At the time of its release, I indicated that I would likely be unable to comment much before 2/19. The usual crises and firestorms meant that my actual response was delayed until 2/20. (You may recall that I had set aside some substantial time prior to the f2f to work on the reqdoc, so my time was in fact made amply available *but* was highly constrained. I had weeklong commitments the weeks of 1/22 and 2/11 in excess of my usual schedule.) Lynn
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 12:34:12 UTC