|Chet Ensign||Apr 24, 2012 3:20 pm|
|Peter F Brown||Apr 24, 2012 3:26 pm|
|robe...@us.ibm.com||Apr 24, 2012 4:21 pm|
|David Staggs||Apr 24, 2012 4:47 pm||.xls|
|Peter F Brown||Apr 24, 2012 6:04 pm|
|Anish Karmarkar||Apr 24, 2012 6:11 pm|
|John Borras||Apr 25, 2012 12:34 am|
|Cantor, Scott||Apr 25, 2012 5:33 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Apr 25, 2012 7:07 pm|
|David Staggs||Apr 25, 2012 7:55 pm|
|Peter F Brown||Apr 26, 2012 9:42 am||.ods, .xlt, .xltx|
|Chet Ensign||Apr 26, 2012 11:52 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Apr 26, 2012 7:12 pm|
|Robin Cover||May 2, 2012 9:38 pm|
|Patrick Durusau||May 4, 2012 7:53 am|
|Peter F Brown||May 4, 2012 9:26 am|
|Patrick Durusau||May 4, 2012 11:52 am|
|Patrick Durusau||May 4, 2012 11:59 am|
|Jon Bosak||May 4, 2012 5:50 pm|
|Jamie Clark||May 4, 2012 10:37 pm|
|Jon Bosak||May 5, 2012 8:23 am|
|Peter F Brown||May 5, 2012 8:36 am|
|Patrick Durusau||May 6, 2012 3:51 am|
|Peter F Brown||May 7, 2012 5:28 pm|
|Patrick Durusau||May 10, 2012 4:34 pm|
|Patrick Durusau||May 10, 2012 4:40 pm|
|Peter F Brown||May 10, 2012 6:12 pm|
|Patrick Durusau||May 11, 2012 4:52 am|
|Patrick Durusau||May 11, 2012 6:32 am|
|Subject:||[chairs] Re: [tab] Re: [chairs] Re: Chairs: Requesting your feedback on comment resolution logs|
|From:||Robin Cover (rob...@oasis-open.org)|
|Date:||May 2, 2012 9:38:31 pm|
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 , where "Call for Implementation" typically implies advancement of a specification to the status of Candidate Recommendation , 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  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 
* 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.
 CFI text: http://www.w3.org/News/2012#entry-9438
 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
 example: HTML5 Web Messaging W3C Candidate Recommendation 01 May 2012 http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-webmessaging-20120501/
 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: rob...@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:
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.
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.
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!
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 patr...@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