Re: What is "wide review"

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:12:33 -0700, Charles McCathie Nevile  
<chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 01:27:28 +0500, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Charles,
>>
>> I haven't gotten to the review of the entire revised Chapter 7, but  
>> in-line are some suggestions on the wide review piece.
>
> Thanks...
>
>> On 7/8/2013 8:08 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>>> close ACTION-1
>>>
>>> After a discussion, I propose to add the following text to my proposal  
>>> for chapter 7, as section 7.2.2
>>>
>>> [[[
>>> The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the  
>>> process.
>>
>> insert: However, the general objective is to ensure that the entire set  
>> of stakeholders of the Web community, including the general public,  
>> have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group and  
>> thereby an opportunity to comment on the specification.
>
> I think the "However" is unnecessary but I like the rest. Unless  
> somebody screams I expect to add it.

and done.

> [...]
>>> A Working Group could present evidence that wide review has been  
>>> received, irrespective of solicitation. But it is important to note  
>>> that many detailed reviews is
>>
>> s/is/are/
>
> no, but s/that/that receiving/

done

>>> not necessarily the same as wide review, since it
>>
>> s/it/they/
>
> yep

done

>>> may only represent comment from a small segment of the relevant  
>>> stakeholder community.
>>> ]]]
>>>
>>> The goal is to set some expectations for what kind of review needs to  
>>> occur, without constraining the definition to the point that invites  
>>> "process-lawyering"...
>>
>> I agree with this goal.  But I also think that it would be helpful to  
>> give a specific example of what is generally viewed as sufficient,  
>> since otherwise it may be confusing for W3C novices. For example, you  
>> can add:
>>
>> "While the W3C Process does not constrain the definition of getting  
>> public review, here is one example of what would be sufficient.  If the  
>> Working Group determines that they have completed their work and are  
>> ready to enter LCCR, they could publicly announce that they intend to  
>> enter LCCR in four weeks and indicate to other Working Groups and the  
>> public that any additional comments should be provided within that  
>> time.  Such a formal method might not be needed for a group that  
>> generally has received wide review for their spec, but it is a  
>> safe-harbor method for those groups that have not adequately engaged  
>> outside of their group."
>
> Yep. I expect not to use that exact text, but big chunks of it at least.

I added the statement that many working groups do this in the middle of  
the paragraph... do you think that's enough?

cheers

Chaals

> In particular, I really don't like the final clause.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 19:22:03 UTC