Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>> It is, for example, not possible to implement a spec from the
>>> spec if two parts of the specification contradict each other. The
>>> specification would need to be changed in order to implement it.
>> Right. Every W3C specification tells you the name of a mailing list
>> to which you should send this kind of feedback. We are required to
>> respond to this feedback (unless it comes from employees of member
>> companies, when it can be handled more informally).
> Working Groups are not required to formally address such issues,
"Formally address all issues raised about the document since the
previous step. In practice, once a Working Group wishes to advance to
Candidate Recommendation or beyond, the Director expects positive
documentation that issues have been formally addressed (e.g., in an
issues list that shows their disposition). For earlier stages on the
Recommendation Track, less formal documentation generally suffices
(e.g., evidence in an archived mailing list)."
> they are not required to respond in a timely manner,
True - and for good reason. We had 1200 public comments for XQuery. You
want a timely response to each one? Ain't gonna happen. The public has
to wait until we've had time to classify the issues, get them on our
agendas, and make decisions.
> and just responding to reviewers does not solve the problem as a
> response does not change the specification in any way.
The requirement is that we address your issue, not that we send you an
email. We have an internal issues list that contains the entire text of
each originating email, classifying it as a typo, editorial,
substantive, etc., and in order to close the issue, we have to have a
Working Group decision on how it is to be resolved, and an announcement
of the decision to the public comments list. If the original responder
pushes back, we have to record that as well. When we want to progress,
we have an interview with Tim Berners-Lee and others, in a process that
is a little like defending a doctoral dissertation.
> And that there is such a requirement does not mean that Working
> Groups actually do it. There thus seems to be room for improvement...
There may be Working Groups that don't do it, but I've been on a good
handful of Working Groups, and the ones that I participated on did this.
> I am not sure where you got this rule for members from, maybe you can
> point me to the relevant section in the operative Process document?
It's quoted above, taken from the link below. May I ask where you are
getting your information from?