W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Final version of the proposed plan

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:00:19 -0400
Message-ID: <5238D0F3.3030404@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
On 9/17/2013 4:49 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> On 9/17/2013 3:14 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>> Furthermore, the Working Group is required to formally address comments
>>> like those described above in a timely manner and must attempt to
>>> satisfy the reviewer. But the proposed plan does not make clear that it
>>> will formally address them prior to making a Last Call announcement, and
>>> likely make substantive changes to the document in response, even though
>>> none of the rules imposed on group participants have been followed.
>> These issues would be treated as post-Last Call issues, but they would
>> still need to be addressed before going to a Recommendation.
> You mean pre-Last Call,

For issues that come in after the deadline:

  - the WG can choose to address them before last call (e.g. for bug 
fixes, or items that the WG wants to address immediately)
  - as a default, they would be postponed and addressed as post-Last 
Call issues.

>   if the Working Group decides to address them by
> making changes that are not minor changes like "clarifications, bug
> fixes, editorial repairs, and minor error corrections". Here:
>
>    A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in
>    either of the following situations:
>
>      1. The Working Group makes substantive changes to the technical
>         report at any time after a Last Call announcement and prior to
>         Publication as a Recommendation, except when the changes involve
>         the removal of features at risk identified in a Call for
>         Implementations. In the case of substantive changes, the Working
>         Group MUST republish the technical report as a Working Draft.
>
>      2. The Director requires the Working Group to address important
>         issues raised during a review or as the result of implementation
>         experience. In this case, Director MAY request that the Working
>         Group republish the technical report as a Working Draft, even if
>         the Working Group has not made substantive changes.
>
>    The Director MUST inform the Advisory Committee and group Chairs when
>    a technical report has been returned to a Working Group for further
>    work.
>
>    After republication as a Working Draft, the next forward step
>    available to the Working Group is a Last Call announcement. The Last
>    Call announcement MAY occur at the same time as the publication of
>    the Working Draft.
>
> As per <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/process.html#return-to-wg>.
>
> By the way, could you point me to the document the Working Group has
> published under the provisions of Process section 6.2.7 3rd paragraph?

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Are you looking for a pointer 
to the draft that was published last week?
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 22:00:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:18 UTC