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: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:11:36 -0600
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, "Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7FEF7F1D-D8B1-4696-832E-D4112B7B3E14@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>

On Dec 13, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> 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.

By that rationale, the requirement would be: The WG should do it. But if they don't, or if there is no WG, the Team MUST do it."

Even if making Team responsible adds some degree of enforceability, it is not clear to me that republication as a NOTE is critical.
It's a good practice. But unfortunately it does not happen all the time. And it does not seem to create big issues when it does not
happen. I guess that's why I am not yet convinced it should be a MUST.

Ian

> 
> 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
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 15:11:41 UTC

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