Delay in File * spec publications in /TR/ [Was: CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline March 3]
Hi All - the publication of the File API LC was delayed because of some logistical issues for Arun as well as some additional edits he intends to make. This delay also resulted in Eric's two File * specs not being published since they have a dependency on the latest File API spec. Arun - can you please give us at least a rough idea when you expect the spec to be ready for LC publication? Jonas - as co-Editor of File API, can you help get the File API LC published? Eric - your File * docs were last published in April 2011 so I think it would be good to get new versions published in /TR/ soon-ish. OTOH, if they have dependencies on the latest File API, it may be better to postpone their publication until File API is published. WDYT? -Thanks, ArtB On Feb 25, 2012, at 7:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Comments and bugs submitted during the pre-LC comment period for File API > spec have been addressed and since there are no open bugs, this is a Call for > Consensus to publish a LCWD of the File API spec using the latest ED as the > basis: > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ > > This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision to > request advancement" for this LCWD. > > Note the Process Document states the following regarding the > significance/meaning of a LCWD: > > [[ > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call > > Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: > > * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical > requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working > Draft; > > * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies > with other groups; > > * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies > have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal > that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later > maturity levels. > ]] > > If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to > public-webapps@w3.org by March 3 at the latest. Positive response is > preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be agreement with the > proposal. > > -Thanks, AB > >
Re: Delay in File * spec publications in /TR/ [Was: CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline March 3]
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Hi All - the publication of the File API LC was delayed because of some > logistical issues for Arun as well as some additional edits he intends to > make. > > This delay also resulted in Eric's two File * specs not being published since > they have a dependency on the latest File API spec. > > Arun - can you please give us at least a rough idea when you expect the spec > to be ready for LC publication? > > Jonas - as co-Editor of File API, can you help get the File API LC published? > > Eric - your File * docs were last published in April 2011 so I think it would > be good to get new versions published in /TR/ soon-ish. OTOH, if they have > dependencies on the latest File API, it may be better to postpone their > publication until File API is published. WDYT? If it's going to be more than a month to get Arun+Jonas's spec up, we might as well go ahead and publish mine; they've had quite a bit of change. If it's less than that, let's just do them all together. > -Thanks, ArtB > > On Feb 25, 2012, at 7:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> Comments and bugs submitted during the pre-LC comment period for File API >> spec have been addressed and since there are no open bugs, this is a Call >> for Consensus to publish a LCWD of the File API spec using the latest ED as >> the basis: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ >> >> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision >> to request advancement" for this LCWD. >> >> Note the Process Document states the following regarding the >> significance/meaning of a LCWD: >> >> [[ >> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call >> >> Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: >> >> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical >> requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working >> Draft; >> >> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies >> with other groups; >> >> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies >> have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal >> that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later >> maturity levels. >> ]] >> >> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to >> public-webapps@w3.org by March 3 at the latest. Positive response is >> preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be agreement with >> the proposal. >> >> -Thanks, AB >> >> >
Re: Delay in File * spec publications in /TR/ [Was: CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline March 3]
On Mar 30, 2012, at 2:25 PM, ext Eric U wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Hi All - the publication of the File API LC was delayed because of some >> logistical issues for Arun as well as some additional edits he intends to >> make. >> >> This delay also resulted in Eric's two File * specs not being published >> since they have a dependency on the latest File API spec. >> >> Arun - can you please give us at least a rough idea when you expect the spec >> to be ready for LC publication? >> >> Jonas - as co-Editor of File API, can you help get the File API LC published? >> >> Eric - your File * docs were last published in April 2011 so I think it >> would be good to get new versions published in /TR/ soon-ish. OTOH, if they >> have dependencies on the latest File API, it may be better to postpone their >> publication until File API is published. WDYT? > > If it's going to be more than a month to get Arun+Jonas's spec up, we > might as well go ahead and publish mine; they've had quite a bit of > change. If it's less than that, let's just do them all together. Eric - I haven't received any responses from Arun or Jonas so I will contact you off list about getting your two File specs ready for publication on /TR/. -Thanks, Art
Re: Delay in File * spec publications in /TR/ [Was: CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline March 3]
> On Mar 30, 2012, at 2:25 PM, ext Eric U wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Arthur Barstow > > wrote: > >> Hi All - the publication of the File API LC was delayed because of > >> some logistical issues for Arun as well as some additional edits > >> he intends to make. > >> > >> This delay also resulted in Eric's two File * specs not being > >> published since they have a dependency on the latest File API > >> spec. > >> > >> Arun - can you please give us at least a rough idea when you > >> expect the spec to be ready for LC publication? > >> > >> Jonas - as co-Editor of File API, can you help get the File API LC > >> published? > >> > >> Eric - your File * docs were last published in April 2011 so I > >> think it would be good to get new versions published in /TR/ > >> soon-ish. OTOH, if they have dependencies on the latest File API, > >> it may be better to postpone their publication until File API is > >> published. WDYT? > > > > If it's going to be more than a month to get Arun+Jonas's spec up, > > we > > might as well go ahead and publish mine; they've had quite a bit of > > change. If it's less than that, let's just do them all together. > > Eric - I haven't received any responses from Arun or Jonas so I will > contact you off list about getting your two File specs ready for > publication on /TR/. Apologies for the delay in getting back to the listserv about changes to File API. Internal logistics have been resolved, and I look forward to making edits on the File API specification. As Eric points out, it is probably going to be more than 2 weeks till I can account for all the necessary edits. Eric's drafts don't need to be held up this timeline, though we should probably keep some things closely in sync., especially events, errors, etc. -- A*
