W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > February 2014

Re: w3process-ISSUE-86 (end of review?): When should the PR review end? [Document life cycle (ch 7)]

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:48:43 +0100
To: "Revising W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <op.xbdkjhpdy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 02:40:59 +0100, Wayne Carr  
<wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2014 12:12 PM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue  
> Tracker wrote:
>> w3process-ISSUE-86 (end of review?): When should the PR review end?  
>> [Document life cycle (ch 7)]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/86
>>
>> Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile
>> On product: Document life cycle (ch 7)
>>
>> In the thread from  
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0015.html  
>> Ian, Wayne and I discussed the expression of, and the actual timing of  
>> the end of PR with relation to exclusion periods. For ages the new  
>> draft has said review should end at least 3 days after CR (used to  
>> imply the beginning of the exclusion period), but by beginning the 28  
>> days at least 35 days after the publication.
>>
>> I propose to say it "should end at least 10 days after the last  
>> exclusion period". I think this is clearer, and 10 days is better than  
>> 3 (we'll see if the AC is OK with that much time - I don't really care  
>> how long they want to wait so I don't think it is a big deal to change  
>> it)
>
> Is it a SHOULD?  Would we ever want the AC review ending before the end  
> of the exclusion period?   I assume it was SHOULD to avoid mandating the  
> 10 days after.   Why not just: "MUST be after the end of the last  
> Exclusion Opportunity " and exactly how much extra time could be worked  
> out through experience.

We have discussed this in TF meetings (although I can't remember and don't  
have time to look for pointers to the specific minutes now).

There are specs that are clearly dealing with stuff that is getting on for  
20 years old. If that becomes more common, the zero risk of patent  
exclusions *may* mean the director really wants to push something, and the  
AC may approve instead of appealing.

> Just a suggstion - the current wording is fine - (given 28 days for CR  
> review and 28 for PR - it can't end too much before anyway.)
>
> Thanks for all the changes!  It's looking good :)

Thanks for all the comments - otherwise it wouldn't have.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Sunday, 16 February 2014 12:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:17 UTC
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0037.html
lists.w3.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-49
11893
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ESC35R2F33NFHISMAPQJCQSW23RGVMZS
<urn:uuid:4ac0fe66-35bb-44ab-a8d0-1c329cf7a7df>
2021-11-27T07:15:32Z
104.18.23.19
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:7SYDSRMJ7I7J7CCWXW5VV3WOBYN5ZQVG
<urn:uuid:f7a8aba4-69b0-403e-a107-2ba1ba44aa0c>
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Feb/0037.html
response
<urn:uuid:8b334eb0-46c7-4872-8307-dfa0d4ea6eec>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-49
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-38
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/