search

w3c / process

W3C Process Document
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/
196 stars 130 forks source link

Clarification about horizontal review #541

Closed frivoal closed 3 years ago

frivoal commented 3 years ago

See #535

If this (or a simple tweak based on this) is acceptable, I suspect we can land it this year. We probably should be doing more in the long term to clarify HR and wide review, but that is significantly harder and doesn't fit in a last minute tweak.

Preview | Diff

plehegar commented 3 years ago

I provided https://github.com/w3c/documentreview/pull/21 to improve our wide review guidance.

plehegar commented 3 years ago

why drop the reference? /Guide gets updated continuously in any case.

frivoal commented 3 years ago

why drop the reference? /Guide gets updated continuously in any case.

As I mentioned in the comment earlier:

Given that that document is still a moving target with disagreements about what it ought to become, I'm dropping that reference for now, and keeping the rest as is.

This is meant to be a small, non controversial last minute editorial clarification, while we wait for another cycle to do a deeper clean up of HR and wide review. Given that there's ongoing discussion about what the scope of that document ought to be, it seems premature to me to link to it from the process.

samuelweiler commented 3 years ago

The link should not be to the charter HR guidance - that seems very off-point. I think it should be to the document HR guidance. I see arguments that the latter is not stable, which leaves us with the option of no link at all, which I think it a worse outcome, given @dwsinger's prior complaints about not be able to find the instructions re: how to get horizontal review of docs.

frivoal commented 3 years ago

Good point. The link went to the charter HR guidance because for quite some time, that was the only documentation which could reliably point you to all the HR groups and their requirements, even if it wasn't its primary purpose. I suspect that swapping it out for the one you suggested would work, and it also sidesteps the question of the overall scope of that document (and its title) not being set in stone yet, which would be an issue if we were to add it as a bibliography entry. By linking directly to the relevant section of that document we no longer need to be blocked by the rest being unstable.

frivoal commented 3 years ago

Updated the PR to reflect the proposal in the past two comments