W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-commits@w3.org > May 2011

html5/decision-policy decision-policy-v2.html,1.27,1.28

From: Maciej Stachowiak via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:28:34 +0000
To: public-html-commits@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QRA0o-0005PY-SR@lionel-hutz.w3.org>
Update of /sources/public/html5/decision-policy
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv20678

Modified Files:
Log Message:
Define a process for "particularly exceptional circumstances"

Index: decision-policy-v2.html
RCS file: /sources/public/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html,v
retrieving revision 1.27
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -d -r1.27 -r1.28
--- decision-policy-v2.html	30 May 2011 21:08:51 -0000	1.27
+++ decision-policy-v2.html	30 May 2011 21:28:32 -0000	1.28
@@ -804,6 +804,35 @@
 to let the Chairs know, ideally via a post to the public list. The
 Chairs will make the call.</p>
+<h3>New Features</h3>
+<p>Furthermore, as we move through W3C maturity levels, the process requires gradually locking
+down the spec. In particular:</p>
+<li>If substantial technical changes are made after a Last Call Working Draft,
+then the Working Group cannot proceed to Candidate Recommendation and must
+publish another LCWD. While it is not entirely clear what kinds of changes are
+substantial enough, it seems like feature additions, or for that matter feature
+removals, probably are.</li>
+<li>During Candidate Recommendation, if anything beyond very minor technical
+changes are made, other than dropping features marked "at risk", then the WG
+cannot proceed to Proposed Recommendation and must return to Working Draft
+<p>Given these rules, it seems wise to be careful about anything that is even
+arguably a feature addition - even arguably ambiguous cases such as documenting
+longstanding de facto standard features.</p>
+<p>Therefore during the current pre-LC period, and during Last Call,
+feature additions or removals should only be done with sufficient
+prior notice to the group, in the form of a bug, a WG decision, or an
+on-list discussion. This applies only to LC-track drafts and does not
+apply to drafts that may include material for future versions of
 <h3>What kind of changes might this revert policy apply to?</h3>
@@ -831,10 +860,13 @@
 normal process.</li>
 <li>It is also reasonably likely that this process could be used to
-object to new features. The Chairs recommend in general that new
-features should not be added after the cutoff, except in particularly
-exceptional circumstances.
-<!-- FIXME: this text needs to be expandedand clarified to cover http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12029 and http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12734 -->
+object to new features. In general, new features should not be added
+to an LC-track draft after the cutoff. If this must be done, it is
+highly recommended that prior notice be given to the WG, ideally via a
+bug report or alternately via an on-list discussion or a WG
+Decision. The Chairs will be very likely to grant revert requests for
+new features where there was not due prior notice.
+<!-- FIXME: this text needs to be expanded and clarified to cover  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12734 -->
 <li>Most likely, this process will be used for the types of changes
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 21:28:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:10:34 UTC