2000-02-18 on $Revision: 1.3 $ of $Date: 2000/02/18 06:29:31 $ by Swick

• "Last call /-consists of-/ /+may generate+/ a set of issues..."
• "...making a request to an editor"
  ¿should this be [solely] the editor's responsibility?
  • Yes: many comments are editorial only
  • Yes: the editors should know the orign of every normative item
  • Yes: by extension of [Process] 6.2.4 Proposed Recommendations (PR),

    The editors of the Proposed Recommendation must respond to substantive comments from the Advisory Committee until the end of the review period.

    the editors should remain the single point-of-contact for all review comments.
  • No: the editors should not have to bear all the burden of defending the GW's decisions.
• ¿Is this process for change requests only, or do clarification requests follow a similar flow?
  A: Requests for clarification would not by themselves be escalated. A request for clarification might develop into an issue requiring WG discussion, but I would prefer to see the issue separately identified. Such an issue would, of course, be linked to the request(s) for clarification that gave rise to the issue.
• This is explicitly for "message[s] in which the reviwer requests a change to the specification". Reviewers often provide insightful comments that are neither requests for clarification nor explicit requests for changes; the reviewer may wish to leave it to the WG to decide whether a change is appropriate without biasing the WG. I would be comfortable if such comments were handled like requests for clarification; that is, the editors use judgement whether the comment is an already-resolved issue or a new one, or not an issue at all. But in any of these cases I would like to see that the reviewer receives an acknowledgement of all substantive comments. This may be the simplest case to spread the burden with the WG; the chair could be made responsible for insuring that all substantive review comments receive an answer from the WG.