On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:21:20 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Arthur Barstow <[email protected]>
wrote:
Anyhow, if the bug doesn't capture your concern(s), please update it.
Since when did we start putting the onus on the reviewer that her or
his feedback is captured?
Before I started working with W3C in the mid 90's (although as noted below
it is part of a set of checks and balances).
That seems like the wrong way around. The editor should actively seek
feedback and make sure it's tracked and addressed.
Indeed. And we expect the editor to do that to the best of their ability.
In the past, where editors were actually editing a document that was
produced more directly by the whole Working Group, the group itself also
assumed some of that function.
But editors are not infallible, and the new model Working Group tends to
be less hands-on about directing the editor. I believe largely at the
perceived behest of a handful of high-profile editors such as yourself.
So in practice the necessity for a commenter to check that their comment
was understood correctly and correctly acted on has become a little more
prominent in the overall balance of how things are done.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
[email protected] Find more at http://yandex.com
