Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review
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
RE: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review
This sounds great. It would be cool if editors ping the relevant list as working drafts get updated, just so everyone can use the lists as an ambient feed of what's going on. But an actual CFC process seems unnecessary. From: Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 12:18 To: Marcos Caceres Cc: public-webapps; Arthur Barstow Subject: Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there has been reached, this sounds like a good idea. Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a spec such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached again. / Jonas On Jan 27, 2014 7:49 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.commailto:w...@marcosc.com wrote: Hi Art, 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. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.commailto:art.bars...@nokia.com (mailto:art.bars...@nokia.commailto:art.bars...@nokia.com) wrote: On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR. The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by interacting with the implementors. We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term after the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us to take more conservative approach in publishing LC. That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing LC. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks for the update Jungkee! I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD and to continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly implemented) is good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC for the WD. We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll request it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version. Thanks, Jungkee -Thanks, Art [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/ [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html -- Jungkee Song
Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review
For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there has been reached, this sounds like a good idea. Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a spec such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached again. / Jonas On Jan 27, 2014 7:49 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: Hi Art, 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. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com(mailto: art.bars...@nokia.com) wrote: On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR. The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by interacting with the implementors. We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term after the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us to take more conservative approach in publishing LC. That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for now before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing LC. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks for the update Jungkee! I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD and to continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly implemented) is good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC for the WD. We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll request it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version. Thanks, Jungkee -Thanks, Art [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/ [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html -- Jungkee Song
Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:48:18 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: Hi Art, 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. Yes, I strongly support that proposal. There is no process requirement that there be a formal Call for Consensus for heartbeat drafts, and no barrier to a group adopting a general process of simply publishing them whenever the editors are ready. cheers Chaals Kind regards, Marcos -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
