Re: Charters for review

On 22/11/2006, at 2:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> > TIMETABLE
> >
> > The milestones in the charter are somewhat unrealistic. I would  
> > suggest
> > the following timetable would be far more likely, based on past  
> > experience
> > with HTML4 (which is still not fully implemented by any two UAs),  
> > DOM, and
> > CSS2.1 (which is the only large W3C specification to have attempted a
> > serious disambiguation period):
>
> I agree the current timetable is overly agressive - it's hard to  
> imagine reaching REC in 2009 without major process abuse. But on  
> the other hand, plotting the future out to 2022 has little  
> predictive or planning value. I would prefer if the charter simply  
> did not include a milestone for REC. Let's leave five-year plans to  
> the soviets.
>
> >     First Working Draft in October 2007.
> >     Last Call Working Draft in October 2009.
> >     Call for contributions for the test suite in 2011.
> >     Candidate Recommendation in 2012.
> >     First draft of test suite in 2012.
> >     Second draft of test suite in 2015.
> >     Final version of test suite in 2019.
> >     Reissued Last Call Working Draft in 2020.
> >     Proposed Recommendation in 2022.

My experience with documents on the W3C track tells me that the only  
thing you can (fairly) accurately predict is when you'll *first*  
enter Last Call. Everything past that is mostly out of the WG's control.

Would it be enough to only have a Last Call on the charter?

I liked David's suggestion that the group consider deliverables with  
smaller increments, although I understand what Ian says about this  
being difficult. It still might be possible to develop an HTML  
specification with the minimum set of new features.

The development of the test suite is another matter, but I would  
expect that the majority of it arrives after CR.

Dean