On 1/27/14 10:48 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for 
ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an 
unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
Hi Marcos,

Strictly speaking there is no requirement to record the group's consensus to publish a *plain* WD. However, given WebApps does [for all practical purposes] all of its technical work asynchronously and has a very broad set of specs, at least some [perhaps the majority?] of members don't follow every spec in detail (f.ex. tracking a spec's check-ins). As such, I think a CfC for these WDs is useful since it provides a heads-up to members the Editor(s) has made sufficient updates that they would like to publish a new TR. I (personally) don't follow every commit for every spec and tend to think the principle of least surprise suggests it wouldn't be especially inclusive for an Editor to unilaterally decide to publish a new TR.

That said, I'm certainly open for ways to reduce overhead and delays although in this case, since the XHR spec work started in 2006, I'm not sure a few days to give people a chance to review/comment before publishing a new WD really does constitute a [significant] "delay". (FYI, a quick scan of the group's mail archives shows about 12 CfC for plain WDs in 2013 among the group's 4K+ emails.)

If there is consensus a 7-day CfC to publish a plain WD is problematic, the duration of the CfC could be reduced. Another option would be for the Editor(s) to issue some type of "Intent to Publish new WD" and give people a few days for comments. Perhaps there are other options too but I do think we should have an expectation that group members are at least given a heads-up before a new WD is published.

Feedback from others is definitely encouraged!

-Thanks, AB




Reply via email to