forking specifications; normative references to "latest versions"; public specs that enable proprietary extensions

There are several topics around process that seem to have raised the most
controversy, and I'm not sure they're reflected in the "issues" around the
process document:

a) should (normative/all) references to other specifications always (sometimes,
usually, never, only under special circumstances) point to a specific version of
the referenced specification? What are the rules for update

b) Should W3C also support "Living Standards" which are not versioned

c) what are the process consequences for dealing with W3C specifications
that have been "forked" and reconciling or bringing the derivative work
back into W3C

I think these are all related. The W3C process was designed in another
time, and there are substantial forces to bring a more "open source"
model to specification development.

I'm also interested in aligning better the coordination with the other
groups that create standards for the web, namely ECMA for
ECMAScript, and IETF for MIME, HTTP, URIs, IRIs, IDN. (JSON 
in both). 





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 1:51 AM
> To: Larry Masinter; Karl Dubost
> Cc: Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-10 Raising awareness before CR
> 
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:25:56 +0900, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
> 
> > Larry,
> >
> > Larry Masinter [2013-06-10T14:24]:
> >> Karl, thanks for doing this.
> >
> > no issue. I had a bit of time today.
> >
> >> But I would like to see if there's more clarity about what the problems
> >> are, somewhat independent of the proposed solution
> >
> > me too. I first want to know:
> >
> > What is "Charles’ draft of a revised Chapter 7 of the Process
> > Document."? Tied to this issue. Hard to discuss the issue without the
> > draft to point to it.
> 
> It is the HTML document you can download at yadi.sk/d/Zikwkr385JG8f
> (Скачть means download).
> 
> There isn't an obvious way to publish it within this group, except by
> making it a draft report. And since I have one-time permission to publish,
> and there is no resolution from the group to publish it, it isn't obvious
> that that would be the best thing to do.
> 
> I'll open an issue on whether I should do that I guess...
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> > For references and issue tracker, I copied the issues from:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Jun/0016.html

> >
> >> (if you
> >> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/10  just asks
> >> " Is there a need for a "Call" whether called "Last Call" or not that
> >> precedes CR and indicates that the WG believes it is done (no open
> >> issues) and a last review should be undertaken? This may be different
> >> than Last Call in the current process."
> >> but I'm not sure what problem this would solve? What's wrong with "last
> >> call" now? Are there things linked to Last Call that you don't want to
> >> invoke, that you need another call?
> >
> > We currently have
> >
> > 1. Editor's draft
> > 2. 1st WD
> > 3. 1 to n WDs
> > 4. Last Call WD
> > 5. CR
> > 6. PR
> > 7. Rec
> > (8. Rescinded Rec)
> >
> > I guess if I understand the proposal (from the issues list), Last Call
> > CR is a 5.5 in between CR and PR.
> > Charles, is it right?
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>        chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 16:51:02 UTC