You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As a general point, as per w3c/process#130 it would be good to document the process for handling review comments, and what kinds of responses are likely to result in a transition request being declined.
For example, if a responder says "I don't like the colour of the text in this document" and the WG ignores the comment, not even sending a response, is that okay? Or at the other end of the scale, if a commenter raises a detailed technical point, the WG considers and responds, and then the commenter remains unhappy with that response, is that okay?
What level of tracking of responses is required and what is merely good practice?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
plehegar
changed the title
Document the process for handling review comments at transitions
[documentreview] Document the process for handling review comments at transitions
Nov 25, 2024
From @nigelmegitt (originally at #276):
As a general point, as per w3c/process#130 it would be good to document the process for handling review comments, and what kinds of responses are likely to result in a transition request being declined.
For example, if a responder says "I don't like the colour of the text in this document" and the WG ignores the comment, not even sending a response, is that okay? Or at the other end of the scale, if a commenter raises a detailed technical point, the WG considers and responds, and then the commenter remains unhappy with that response, is that okay?
What level of tracking of responses is required and what is merely good practice?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: