W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

Re: LCCR period too short

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 14:17:27 +1000
To: "W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <op.w7ejvdypy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:37:15 +1000, fantasai  
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> Currently the proposed new Process says of LCCR
>   # must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least
>   # four weeks after publication, and should be longer for complex
>   # documents
> however REC says:
>   # should not provisionally approve a Request for publication of
>   # a W3C Recommendation less than 35 days after the publication
>   # of the Last Call Candidate Recommendation on which is it based
>   # [editor's note - this is to allow for the patent policy
>   # exclusion period to expire]
>
> It might be helpful to recommend that the LCCR comment period
> be at least as long as the exclusion period, since you can't
> (except in extraordinary circumstances, I imagine) publish a
> REC before then anyway.

I don't think this is necessary, but I don't mind doing it although I  
would rather the process continues to allow the fastest progress possible  
for the smallest overhead in the case where the work has actually been  
done right. If we do decide to do this, I would rather have the suggestion  
in the "How to get to Rec"/Guide documentation than in the process itself.

You certainly *can* publish a Rec before the exclusion period finishes,  
although the sort of cases I imagine it being relevant to are longdesc  
(this has been around for at least 16 years, probably more, which makes a  
patent exclusion unlikely).

To clariy the timeline a bit: (I think it would be useful to put this in a  
diagram - let's see if I get time to draw one).

For a group working "CSS-style" (as you have outlined it), they will be  
ready when they enter. There is a mandatory final review period of four  
weeks, where no real changes are expected. Then there is a *suggested*  
minimum 3 further weeks before the director agrees that barring unforeseen  
difficulties (exclusion, unfavourable AC review) this should be a  
Recommendation. If both these minima have been applied here are a further  
25 days for exclusion, allowing the AC review to run over that date by at  
least 3 days.

There is nothing preventing W3C from extending the AC review period - and  
this seems likely to happen in the relatively rare event that an exclusion  
is made.

It is also possible for the Working Group members to voluntarily declare  
they will not exclude earlier than the required deadline. In this case the  
only reason to wait so long is that another member may join the working  
group, explcitily to exclude (unlikely, and in any event there is no  
requirement to join in order to make an exclusion).

So we maintain the fastest possible path, without putting anything in the  
way of doing something sensible.

The one theoretical risk is that the W3C has some scope to rush through a  
spec where an exclusion has been made at the last minute, in collusion  
with the working group, giving the AC only 3 days to react. Given also the  
requirement for a public explanation of any plan to override dissent 14  
days before formally producing a Recommendation, I think the risk that the  
entire AC sleepwalks through such a circumstance is almost as low as the  
risk W3C actually allows it to arise.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Sunday, 1 December 2013 07:18:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC