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

Re: w3process-ISSUE-80: Publishing Note to end unfinished REC should only be SHOULD

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:29:19 +0400
To: public-w3process@w3.org, "Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w706a5a5y3oazb@dhcp-219-197-wifi.yandex.net>
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:06:17 +0400, Revising W3C Process Community Group  
Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> w3process-ISSUE-80: Publishing Note to end unfinished REC should only be  
> SHOULD
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/80
>
> Raised by: Ian Jacobs
> On product:
>
>    "W3C must publish any unfinished specifications on the
>     Recommendation track as Working Group Notes. "
>
> I suggest we change that to SHOULD. The sentence that follows says
> SHOULD for a different scenario:
>
>   "If a Working group decides, or the Director requires, the Working
>    Group to discontinue work on a technical report before completion,
>    the Working Group should publish the document as a Working Group
>    Note."
>
> It is not clear to me that the rationale of "closing the group" is
> materially different from any other piece of rationale the Director
> might have.
>
> Charles replied:
>
>  "This has been discussed before (in an AB meeting before we made the  
> discussion open). The rationale for the difference is that there is no  
> effective way to require a Working Group to publish a Note shelving  
> their work, especially in the case where they have been told to shut  
> down. But it is feasible, and IMHO reasonable, to insist that W3C team  
> do it."
>
> The fact that the Team can do it does not increase the importance of  
> doing it. If it was not important enough for us to make it a MUST  
> requirement on WGs, I don't see why anybody else should have a MUST  
> requirement.

The reason for not making it a MUST on WGs is that there is no way of  
enforcing it. It is important to do, but the only effective way to make it  
a MUST is to shift the responsibility for it to W3C.

I don't mind doing that to be honest - it would be good for you to go  
through the entire publication process from time to time to check that it  
hasn't got excessively complicated or time-consuming, and it would be good  
to be even surer that stuff gets published when it should. But I think it  
is important that the Process reinforce the general idea that Working  
Groups are responsible for doing their work, rather than assuming the  
team's job is to do all the menial tasks involved in meeting the process  
requirements.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 12:29:53 UTC

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