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

Re: Agenda for Chapter 7 Process Doc TF for Monday, 2 December

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:04:54 -0800
Message-ID: <529CAFA6.3050900@inkedblade.net>
To: Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>
CC: public-w3process@w3.org, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
On 12/01/2013 10:11 PM, Steve Zilles wrote:
> Chapter 7 Task Force Telcon, 8AM Pacific, 11AM Eastern, 2 December

Pushed back my flight so I can attend. :) But might have to
cut out partway, so here's a quick summary of my thoughts...

> Agenda:
>
> 1.Discuss open issue 39, 50, 51, 52, 54, 70
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39

I'm in favor of Ralph's latest proposal,
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0008.html
provided we have a phase-out plan for getting rid of the
boilerplate proposed in point #1:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0010.html

> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51

I agree with Chaals's note in the issue. Don't think we
need to discuss anything atm; I assume he'll post proposed
text to review, at which point we can review that.

> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/50

I agree that this should be closed as a non-issue.

> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52

My current thinking on Steve's proposal on this issue is to
allow  for working groups to create custom status labels for
their Working Drafts and to have space and encouragement for
meaningful status section messages in the specs.

A working group could then define whatever review levels it
thinks are useful (e.g. Exploratory Working Draft, Design-Complete
Working Draft, We Have Three Issues Left Working Draft, etc.)
and have those appear up front and obvious in the publication
and in the publication announcements. W3C would maintain a wiki
page where WGs could "register" their labels so for any single
label, there is a single definition; and WGs could learn from
each other and adopt each others labels as appropriate.

I don't think we know yet what the most useful labels might be,
so I'd prefer we didn't just create out of the blue but let
WGs experiment for a few years and see if there are common
stages we want to enshrine later.

I'd be opposed to having just "Functionally Complete" as a label.
Drafts I've worked on tend to flow around
   1. Brainstorming. These are some crazy ideas we're throwing
      around trying to solve problem XYZ.
   2. We think the design is solid, satisfies use cases, and
      is user- and implementation-friendly. Please comment on
      it *now* if you think it's not, 'cuz we're going to work
      on the details next.
   3. We've filled in all the details. Please comment on them
      *now* if we missed something.
   4. We think we're done. Last chance to comment!

> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54

I agree with closed/out-of-scope-at-this-time.

> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/70

I don't have a strong opinion on this and defer to Anne Bassetti.
However, I suspect s/normative/informative/ in the first example
is not correct.

> 2.Discuss raised issues 56-69
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised

I'll have to review these later... [out-of-time]

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 2 December 2013 16:05:39 UTC

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