Re: What is "wide review"

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.

[...]
>> 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/

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

yep

>> 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.  
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 Wednesday, 10 July 2013 23:13:04 UTC