Move Baseline status definition review date text #479
Conversation
|
(Since this touches the Baseline definition, it needs review from the owners group.) |
|
LGTM! |
| @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ This is but one of several possible stories to help keep in mind the needs and c | |||
| The WebDX community group, through the [web-platform-dx/web-features-set owners group](../GOVERNANCE.md), maintains this document. | |||
| Based on WebDX community group research, the web-features owners group decides matters such as the core browser set, releases, editorial overrides, and so on. | |||
|
|
|||
| The status definition is due for review by the governance group on 7 November 2024. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The section and governance document use "owners group", not "governance group".
Also, it suddenly occurs to me that putting an explicit due date in the definition itself means the definition will have to be updated every year no matter what, even if the governance group determines that no updates are warranted. Is that intended? And does the date actually matter?
| The status definition is due for review by the governance group on 7 November 2024. | |
| The owners group reviews the status definition at least once per calendar year. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the suggestion was to obligate an at-least annual review, to keep the advocates for the time-based proxy on usage honest (i.e., to ensure that the 30 months didn't unintentionally lead to lower or higher likely usage figures). But it was @LeoMcA suggestion, so maybe he can express the intent better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for a change of intent. I'm merely pointing out that hardcoding a date in the definition itself de facto means that the definition has to be updated every year, to replace the due with next year's due date.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think that's a correct reading. I think that was even the intended reading. So I don't want to change to your proposed text unless it would also satisfy the original intent. 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've filed #502 about "governance group" vs. "owners groups".
Beyond that this PR is just moving the date. I think it's fine to have the date in this document and being required to update it once a year. Not a big burden for the owners I think :)
This PR moves the "due for review" date to the "Ownership and maintenance" section of the Baseline doc.
As @tidoust noted in #423 (comment), the existing phrasing is somewhat over determined. It suggests that the duration and only the duration would come up for review. This conflicts with the governance text that says that reviewing and revising the definition (in general) is on the agenda annually. This PR attempts to reconcile the competing texts.