OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [tab] Re: [chairs] Re: Chairs: Requesting your feedback on comment resolution logs


Here's something from W3C relevant to the email
thread "your feedback on comment resolution logs"
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201204/threads.html#00026
which partly fulfills requirements articulated by
by Patrick Durusau.  At the same time it put the
tune of Paul Simons into my brain "There Must Be
50 Ways to Leave Your (feedback on a spec)"

===============
Context
===============

I spotted a public "Call for Implementations" from
W3C [1], where "Call for Implementation" typically
implies advancement of a specification to the
status of Candidate Recommendation [2], where:

1. W3C believes the technical report is stable and
   appropriate for implementation (though it may
   still change based on implementation experience).

2. The Working Group is not required to show that
   a technical report has two independent and
   interoperable implementations, but...
   should include a report of present and expected
   implementations as part of the request.

3. The Working Group may identify specific features
   of the technical report as being "features at
   risk" ... [and] after gathering implementation
   experience, the Working Group may remove features
   from the technical report that were identified
   as being "at risk"...

4. An announced minimal duration of the "Call for
   Implementation" period is designed to allow time
   for comment, and should include the Working
   Group's estimate of the time expected to gather
   sufficient implementation data...

=================================================
Mechanics for feedback during the comment period
=================================================

In today's example, the "HTML5 Web Messaging"
spec is advanced to CR [3] and provides three
methods for public submission of comments, depending
upon user preferences:

* using the public Issue Tracking Service (Bugzilla),
  which supports tracking of comments made on the
  specification [4]

* entering Feedback Comments directly into the
  document being reviewed, in an embedded web form

* using email to send feedback to the public
  archived lists

Users who provide public comment can arrange
to receive notifications of changes to the
specification using either a Commit-Watchers
mailing list (complete source diffs) or
via the browsable version-control record of
all changes resulting from the feedback sent
during the "Call for Implementation" period.

Just FYI, as we are collecting ideas for future
improvements to the OASIS TCs' public comment
facility.

- Robin

[1] CFI text: http://www.w3.org/News/2012#entry-9438

[2] W3C Process Document, 7.4.3 Call for Implementations
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi
Candidate Recommendation
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsCR

[3] example: HTML5 Web Messaging
    W3C Candidate Recommendation 01 May 2012
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-webmessaging-20120501/

[4] W3C Bug / Issue Tracking Service
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi


--

Robin Cover
OASIS, Director of Information Services
Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink
Email: robin@oasis-open.org
Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover
Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/
Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html
Tel: +1 972-296-1783


On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Patrick Durusau wrote:

Chet,

On 04/26/2012 02:52 PM, Chet Ensign wrote:
First of all, thank you for the feedback thus far. This has been very
helpful to me. I take the following key points from this discussion:

- Keep it simple

True but that should be for those making comments as well as the TCs.

For example:

The Draft Review System provides a simple web-based interface that allows users to provide their comments online, thus reducing the need for costly transcription of comments received via letter or email. The draft document is displayed to users, divided into sections that can each be commented on individually. Comments automatically reference the section of document on which they were made.

Can any of the options you offer below:

1) provide comments directly *in* the draft document

2) automatically reference the section of the document where they are made

3) avoid transcription of comments

4) Not listed above but changes to the draft are made directly in the document where the comments occur.

No?

Imagine #4 for tracking the disposition of comments. (An OASIS requirement by the way.)

Moreover, the Draft Review System:

The Draft Standards Review System reduces the cost and complexity of managing public and private comment on draft standards and specifications. Standards organizations need to gather feedback on draft standards and draft specifications, from the public and from specific groups. This widens participation in standards creation, increases the quality of the final documents, and helps identify the users with an interest in that document.

Public and private comments, widening participation in the standards process, etc.

Is this vapour ware?

Is this smoke and mirrors?

No! BSI (British Standards Institute) has had this software in operation for *years.*

OASIS would have to have "standards" for work at OASIS but then that should not be odd for a standards organization.

It is unseemly for our TCs to expect other people to follow "standards," when they follow none of their own.

Anyone who wants further documentation can write to me off-list or on.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

PS: I freely admit that I will be among the first to grumble and complain about changes or requirements I don't like. But, I want an OASIS that follows standards to produce high-quality standards and uses the best technology available to do so. That starts with a Board that expects excellence and accepts nothing less.

--

Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
OASIS Technical Advisory Board (TAB) - member

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tab-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tab-help@lists.oasis-open.org




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]