Contributions Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:42:20 +0400, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: It's unclear what you think we should be doing differently. Well, for instance, that when I point something out that was missed I am not directed to submit my feedback again, elsewhere. Hmm. That isn't what happened: [[[ On 12/10/13 10:54 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: During the CfC, I only recall one technical comment and Travis created bug [23936] for that comment and he noted that comment will be considered as a `LC comment`. It seems the technical comment about it blatantly contradicting the DOM Standard went lost somehow. It's not ready for Last Call. Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time we've had more than one LC ... Anyhow, if the bug doesn't capture your concern(s), please update it. ]]] i.e. we believe the editor is tracking your feedback, we hope we have correctly interpreted it, and in case we haven't you have a pointer to correct us. You're not directed to submit it again, we're trying our best to ensure that we don't misunderstand and fail to deal with it adequately. So I still think there is a misunderstanding here rather than a real problem - but if I am wrong, I'm happy to keep trying to find out what the problem that we should solve is. (Please note that I am not trying to pick on you. In this particular instance I think we have ended up wasting more of everyone's, and in particular each others', time than we needed to, by not being very clear in the first place. And for my fault in that I apologise). cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: It's unclear what you think we should be doing differently. Well, for instance, that when I point something out that was missed I am not directed to submit my feedback again, elsewhere. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:21:20 +0100, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: 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). Given the scarcity of quality review that seems bad. 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. Sad to learn this is how WebApps tries to run things. Both as editor and reviewer I find this unacceptable. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:49:30 +0400, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:21:20 +0100, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: 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). Given the scarcity of quality review that seems bad. I think what's bad is that it is difficult to get quality review, good editors, and excellent contributions from the working group. But I don't see an obvious fix for that. Indeed, the point of soliciting review is because it seems unlikely that even the best set of contributors working together will always be right. 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. Sad to learn this is how WebApps tries to run things. Both as editor and reviewer I find this unacceptable. I think we're misunderstanding each other. This isn't how Webapps tries to run things, nor any kind of formal policy. It is a reflection on the imperfect world we live in. It's unclear what you think we should be doing differently. If you believe we can simply insist that editors do a perfect job of capturing feedback and responding to it correctly, we will have to disagree. If you think that reviewers should expect the editor and the Working Group to make a serious good faith effort to understand and respond correctly to a review comment we are in violent agreement. As an editor and a chair, I find it unfortunate when a reviewer doesn't follow up their comment to ensure that it was clear and that the Working Group acted on it in a satisfactory way, because while I would like to trust that this is the case I am more confident after checking. But given the absence of an enforcement mechanism, that's just another of the unfortunate things that happens (and in general I would prefer that than a too-strict enforcement mechanism). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
Dear Advisory Committee representative, This is a W3C Patent Policy Call for Exclusions for the following Recommendation Track document: - DOM Parsing and Serialization (http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Parsing/), exclusion opportunity ending on 8 February 2014 23:59 UTC This specification was produced by the Web Applications Working Group. If you do not wish to exclude patent claims during this exclusion opportunity, no further action is required. Member participants who think their organization may have patent claims to exclude should contact their Advisory Committee Representative. Participants made a Royalty-Free licensing commitment upon joining this Working Group. With the publication of this document, per section 4.1 of the Patent Policy [1], Participants have an opportunity until 8 February 2014 23:59 UTC to exclude patent claims reading on this Last Call draft. At Last Call, exclusions are limited to matter in the Last Call draft that was not present or apparent in this draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-DOM-Parsing-20120920/ Excluded claims are not subject to the licensing requirements of the W3C Patent Policy for this document. For more information about exclusions, please see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion To make exclusions, please use the following form: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42538/exclude Summary information for this group related to the W3C Patent Policy is available at: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42538/status If you have any questions or need further information, please contact, for the Web Applications Working Group: * Yves Lafon at yla...@w3.org For more information on the W3C Patent Policy and patent claim exclusions, see: http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq Thank you, For Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director; Coralie Mercier, W3C Communications [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-resign -- Coralie Mercier - W3C Communications Team - http://www.w3.org mailto:cora...@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Coralie Mercier cora...@w3.org wrote: - DOM Parsing and Serialization (http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Parsing/), There were several outstanding comments against publishing and the WG published anyway? What is going on? -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
On 12/10/13 10:21 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Coralie Mercier cora...@w3.org wrote: - DOM Parsing and Serialization (http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Parsing/), There were several outstanding comments against publishing and the WG published anyway? What is going on? During the CfC, I only recall one technical comment and Travis created bug [23936] for that comment and he noted that comment will be considered as a `LC comment`. After the CfC deadline, Ms2ger and James raised a concern about a change in the boilerplate to satisfy the TR publication rules. I created process issues [Issue-71] and [Issue-73] for this concern and I don't think those `general` issues should block the publication. -ArtB [23936] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23936 [Issue-71] https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71 [Issue-73] https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/73
Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: During the CfC, I only recall one technical comment and Travis created bug [23936] for that comment and he noted that comment will be considered as a `LC comment`. It seems the technical comment about it blatantly contradicting the DOM Standard went lost somehow. It's not ready for Last Call. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: Call for Exclusions: DOM Parsing and Serialization
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:21:20 +0100, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com 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 cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
