What is "wide review"

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.  
Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has actually  
reviewed the document and provided comments, particularly in light of the  
listed dependencies, and how the Working Group has solicited and responded  
to review. In particular, the Director is likely to consider the record of  
requests to and responses from groups identified as dependencies in the  
charter, as well as seeking evidence of clear communication to the general  
public about appropriate times and which content to review.

As an example, inviting review of new or significantly revised sections  
published in Heartbeat Working Drafts, and tracking those comments and the  
Working Group's responses, is generally a good practice which would often  
be considered positive evidence of wide review. By contrast a generic  
statement in a document requesting review at any time is likely not to be  
considered as sufficient evidence that the group has solicited wide review.

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 not necessarily the same as wide review, since it 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"...

cheers

Chaals

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

Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 12:09:16 UTC