Hi All,
On Dec 6, 2006, at 2:24 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
Yeah, I see your point. Dean or Art, is there a more elegant way we
can
do this?
Well that may depend on the semantics of "elegant" or perhaps the
semantics of "semantics" if I correctly understand one of the more
recent comments :-).
More seriously though, I support doing the least amount of
administrative overhead that satisfies the process requirements
listed below (i.e. #1-#3) and I agree with Ian we don't want to do
anything that is anti-social. I believe Dean accurately represented
the process requirements and recommend we follow them and not pattern
our effort after some other Working Group that may not have followed
these [IMHO generally benign] requirements.
In practice e.g. for a simply typographical error, it would be "make
work" to require the extra round-trip implied in requirement #3 below.
OTOH, I suspect that for more substantial comments, it would
facilitate the CEO and/or Director's review (and thus expedite the
totality of the process) if a link to the Commentor's acknowledgment
(i.e. #3 below) were readily available in the disposition of comments
document.
Dean has a lot more experience with this than me so I await his
recommendation.
Regards,
Art Barstow
---
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Really? That's not the impression I got from Dean at our last F2F
(quote
from minutes, see [1]):
DJ: There aren't really any clear requirements. However, we've been
asked to do the following:
DJ: 1. Link to the original comment message
DJ: 2. Link to the official WG response message (or messages)
DJ: 3. Link to the acknowledgment from the commenter (that they are
happy/unhappy with the response)
It's quite possible that the W3C is requesting things that aren't part
of
the W3C's process; W3C process violations are quite common and do not
seem
to ever be addressed (see, e.g., SVG Tiny 1.2). I am attempting to
follow
W3C process while being polite to reviewers; repeatedly telling
reviewers
that they must reply within two weeks is not polite and is not
required
by
the W3C process document. (I've been on the receiving end of "please
reply
within two weeks", and it seems very rude, especially when the working
group itself takes months to reply.)
We spent a lot of time reviewing all the XBL2 comments at the last
f2f,
and it would be a great help to us if you would simply ask: "Could
you
please let us know if the above satisfies your comments?"
I really don't understand how it helps anyone, especially not the
reviewers. Could you elaborate?
Even if it's not the W3C way, it seems to be the WAF way (see also
all
the emails Dean sent out to people on the 26/10/2006 regarding XBL
feedback).
I didn't really see the point in those e-mails. They seemed, to me, to
be
somewhat rude (no offense intended to Dean, who I am sure meant
them in
the best possible way).
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )
\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _
\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--
(,_..'`-.;.'
