[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
Robin, Thanks!The latest word is that an enhanced version of the BSI developed software is underway but it isn't public at this point.
I wasn't suggesting it as one among many non-standard choices a TC can make.Rather I was thinking that it be used at the "standard" way to display comments/edits to drafts at OASIS.
TCs would be free to use spreadsheets, word processors, cigar boxes, note cards or any other means they care to use in collecting comments and editing their drafts.
However, the TC admin would accept only drafts that are submitted using the "standard" mechanism, along with comments, etc.
Believing in freedom of choice, the TCs could do double the work or they could choose to use the "standard" method.
TCs that want to use ODF (my first choice), DITA (other people's choice), Word, etc. could do so.
But we all (me included) would have to use the standard means to submit to the TC Admin.
A variation on "your mother doesn't work here." The TC Admin should not be cleaning up after adults who are supposed to be computer literate.
The public, remember the public?, get a standard way to comment on and to see their comments resolved.
Unless public comment and tracking of those comments isn't a goal. (I withhold comment on that issue.)
Hope you are having a great day! PatrickPS: Any governments or government agencies interested in e-government and transparency of the same should be interested in standard mechanisms for development and comment on standards. Use your voices as OASIS members to make that requirement known.
A crazy-quilt of methods for comments and tracking comments means a greater burden on the public. Your public.
On 05/03/2012 12:38 AM, Robin Cover wrote:
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
-- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]