i18n Horizontal Review ideas

In an ideal world, i18n folks would be assigned to work on each WG throughout the whole spec development process. We don’t have the bandwidth for that, so we're thinking along the following lines as a more practical alternative.

• WGs do self-reviews, starting at FPWD but also at other points during the spec development process, and HGs review these, checking for areas where the WG will need to give thought. They also work on improving the review checklists and explanations used for self-reviews.
• WGs appoint horizontal champions to ensure that contacts with HGs happen at appropriate points (ie. they're not experts, but they know who to contact and when, and they look out for possible HG related issues).
• WGs can ask advice of HGs at any time if they know there are likely to be HG implications to aspects of their spec.
• WGs ask HGs to take a detailed look at their work before CR with plenty of time to make changes: they should not wait for the spec to be ‘finalised’, but should not be too early either - the ideal is typically to engage the HG no less than 3 months before CR*. (Think of this more as a period of collaboration, rather than a quality control check at the end of the process. The collaboration will typically start by the HG doing a detailed review of the spec.)
• After the detailed review, WGs communicate with HGs about any significant changes they make to the spec that were not tracked already as a result of the review.
• Before proceeding to CR, WGs must indicate resolutions to HG issues raised and whether the HG group is satisfied, and the Director checks those issues.

---

* If a WG is unable to predict the point which is 3 months before the transition to CR, they will need to engage with the HG for a major review at some point which they judge effective (based on the state of the spec). This should be far enough in advance such that the HG can comfortably manage the review on approximately a 3 month schedule (failure to predict the transition is thus not an emergency for the HG). If it ends up being performed far in advance of the eventual CR transition, the WG might then need to ask for further attention at various points on the remainder of the journey towards CR, but should try to do so in a way that doesn't overburden the HG. It seems to us that for most WGs this doesn't apply, since they have end dates in mind, be it to meet charter end dates, to transition before the summer vacation, or for other reasons.

The 3-month window should not be a fixed period. If it is possible to obtain horizontal review and finalise the spec in less than 3 months from the time horizontal review is requested, there should be no obstacle preventing an earlier transition to CR.

Note, btw, that the 3 month window is beneficial for focusing the schedule and minds of the HR group also – if a WG doesn't have a target date in mind, there is a likelihood that in a busy period groups with a target date will receive priority.

---

If a WG sets a date in the future for CR, tooling could help in the following way. If the date is less than 3 months away, the tool should advise the WG to send a request for HG review straight away. If the date is more than 3 months away, the tool should remind the WG to request a detailed review of the HGs, if they haven't already done so, once they hit the 3-months-to-go date.