W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

[ALL] draft process for producing WG Notes

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:13:56 +0200
Message-ID: <40C4E8A4.8010803@cs.vu.nl>
To: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Minutes of May 27:
> ACTION: guus to provide description of process for publishing notes

I've written a first draft, see below. Comments very welcome.
Guus


SWBPD Working Group
Process for publishing Working Notes

Guus Schreiber
draft, 7 June 2004

1. A task-force (TF) identifies (typically in its TF description) a
    best-practice/deployment that would be useful to publish The
    Working Group agrees on the usefulness of such a note, typically by
    agreeing to the TF description.

2. The TF starts work to produce a note. At some point the TF
    coordinator signals to the Working Group that the note is (almost)
    ready for public review. The TF coordinator asks the WG to review
    the note prior to public review.

3. The WG assigns at least one WG participant outside the TF to review
    the note. The internal reviewing period should typically be 1-2
    weeks. The WG may either (1) take a decision directly to publish
    the note as a working draft for public review, leaving it to the
    discretion of the author(s) and reviewer(s) to revise the draft, or
    (2) postpone the decision to publish as working draft till after
    the review/revision process is completed.

4. The note is published as a working draft [note a] of the WG,
    requesting public review. The draft should identify the mailing
    list to which comments should be sent (at the moment
    public-swbp-wg@w3.org with an appropriate message-label
    suggestion). The draft should also specify the review period
    (typically 4-6 weeks).

5. The WG will strive for consensus on the contents of a WG Note,
    bearing in mind that the consensus can be of a different level than
    required for a recommendation. When the WG sees sufficient
    consensus [note b], the author(s), TF coordinator or chair may ask
    the WG for a decision to publish the draft as a WG Note. This
    signals that the WG considers this work for the moment to be
    finished.

6. If the WG sees evidence that a WG Note requires revision, the WG
    may reopen work on the note and start the same process as described
    above for publishing a revised version of the WG Note.

Notes:

a. The term "Working draft" is used here to point to a draft version
of a note and does not signify a draft document in a
recommendation-track process. The use of "working draft" will need to
be verified by the chair or team contact by consulting appropriate
parties in W3C (e.g. the AC).

b. For the moment no "last-call working draft" is foreseen. This has
too strong connotations with recommendation-track documents.


-- 
Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718
E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 18:13:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC