ISSUE-52: How is satisfying “widely reviewed” encouraged/ensured?

Wide Review Ensured

How is satisfying “widely reviewed” encouraged/ensured?

Document life cycle (pre 2014 chapter 7, now chapter 6)
Raised by:
Steve Zilles
Opened on:
There have been extensive comments on the Chapter 7 draft related to ensuring that the Widely Reviewed requirement is met by LCCR. These have ranged over
1. not invoking LCCR multiple times
2. ensuring reviewers are well informed about a document's status
3. spliting the Review requirements into a separate session from Status
Clearly some refinement is needed.

This is reviewed in
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. [minutes] and summary of 27 January 2014 Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference (from on 2014-01-27)
  2. Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 16 December (from on 2013-12-15)
  3. [minutes] 2013-12-02 Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference (from on 2013-12-05)
  4. Re: Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 2 December (from on 2013-12-02)
  5. Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 2 December (from on 2013-12-01)
  6. [minutes] 2013-11-25 Chapter 7 Revisions meeting (from on 2013-11-27)
  7. [minutes] 2013-11-15 Chapter 7 Revisions (part of Advisory Board f2f Day 2) meeting (from on 2013-11-27)
  8. Results from 25 November W3C Process Task Force meeting (from on 2013-11-25)
  9. Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 25 November (from on 2013-11-25)
  10. w3process-ISSUE-52 (Wide Review Ensured): How is satisfying “widely reviewed” encouraged/ensured? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] (from on 2013-11-10)

Related notes:

Discussion of this issue, both in various fora (ac-forum and public-w3process) and that W3C Process Task Force has shown that there is a desire for
1. a standard signal that the document is (mostly) complete and ready for review as a whole.
2. having every Working Draft (WD) have, up front, an indication of what should be reviewed in this draft. The above signal can be used in this "section" to describe that status of the document as a whole.

One possible name for this signal could be "Functionally Complete". This would mean that the Working Group thought it had completed its work and was asking the reviewers for confirmation that that is true. The use of this signal would be optional and its use would not either be necessary nor sufficient to meet the criteria for "Wide Review".

One possible name for a section that indicates what to review could be, "Review Considerations" This section SHOULD be present at the beginning of the document and should highlight sections of the document that are most appropriate for review. This is different from the list of changes since the last version, but it may link to that list as appropriate.

Steve Zilles, 25 Nov 2013, 18:36:26

[koalie]: SteveZ: There is consensus to drop "single" in "single signal"

2 Dec 2013, 16:55:22

[koalie]: closing in favour of issue-83

27 Jan 2014, 16:40:39

The meat of the issue raised here is delt with in the handling of Revised CRs (Issue 77) and allowing additional Review requirements (Issue 83). Therefore, this issue is CLOSED.

Steve Zilles, 27 Jan 2014, 16:41:45

Display change log ATOM feed

David Singer <>, Chair, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <>.
$Id: 52.html,v 1.1 2020/03/09 13:50:06 carcone Exp $