[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tag] Re: Done - Re: Ready to start next, potential candidate drafts
I hope I didn't give the impression that I preferred separate public reviews for the three CDs. I just meant that the ballot to go to public review be separated, at least the first time, from the ballot to approve the set of latest working drafts as CDs. With regard to input during a ballot, we can of course pay attention to anything arriving via tag-comment and submissions from all members. But it is only the action of the voting members at the time that determines approval of a CD and approval of a Public Review. That is also a good reason for separating the approval of a CD from approval for Public Review, because I don't know what it takes to decide not to do the Public Review because there are changes we'd prefer to make as a result of the balloting for CD approval even though the combined ballot passed. Then you get into rules for reconsideration of passed ballots and approved motions, etc. During a public review, there can be comments on the tag list of course and in meetings, with there being special responsibilities with regard to comments that come in via tag-comment. -----Original Message----- From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Green Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 13:07 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: Jacques R. Durand; TAG TC Subject: Re: [tag] Re: Done - Re: Ready to start next, potential candidate drafts [ ... ] I'm not really in favour of separate public reviews though. I get the impression that related specs are supposed to be put out together (though we could argue that they are actually distinct). There are dependencies which mean that a change to one requires a change to the others (e.g. a change to the markup requires a change to the guidelines and maybe to the model). We could get into a mix-up if we had review of one spec then agreed it but a subsequent review of another spec required us to go back and change the first. Better, I think, if we can respond to any comments on either document by changing potentially all of the documents at the same time following a simultaneous public review. Even if we didn't have all our members with voting rights at the time of a ballot I'm sure we would accommodate the expression of approval (or otherwise) from those who would normally vote but might not be able to vote officially - an unofficial vote or just a statement of agreement on the list would be valuable all the same. As of course would participation in internal TC review which is fine even for non-voting members. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]