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

Re: Trimming the Rec Track Process?

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:26:48 -0400
Message-ID: <519B7618.6000300@nokia.com>
To: ext Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 5/12/13 11:34 PM, ext Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been working on an idea about the Rec Track Process. I'm not 
> the only one.
> Roughly, I think it makes sense to collapse Candidate Recommendation 
> and Last Call together. Having put this idea about, and listened to 
> some responses and ideas about it I am becoming more convinced, so I 
> sat down to rewrite the chapter in the Process that describes Rec 
> Track as an exercise in seeing how this would pan out.
> It seems to work out OK. Basically to get into last call you need to 
> have done your job in the working group, and should have done a 
> reasonable amount of coordination with the people most likely to care.
> I clarify that the requirement for CR isn't "two implementations", it 
> is "this spec will lead to independent implementations being highly 
> interoperable". Two or more implementations has been used as if it 
> were a proof by induction - the first people got the spec right, the 
> next people got the spec right and work with the first lot, so the 
> rest will too. But this is a pretty hand-wavy approach, which at the 
> same time can be used to impose massive formalism on stuff that 
> doesn't need it. (There are probably ways to make test cases for the p 
> element that show it doesn't work entirely interoperably. That should 
> be fixed, but the idea that we should rescind the element until it is 
> fixed is just a bit ludicrous).
> As a sideline, I kind of "trimmed" Proposed Recommendation a bit - it 
> isn't so much a status as a waypoint. The assumption is that Proposed 
> Recommendations become Recommendations, but there are examples of that 
> not happening, and for the ones I know I think with good reason. So 
> there is still a chance for the AC to say "no, stop, wait!!!", just in 
> case.
> And I re-cast the chapter so it focuses on who must/may/should notů do 
> what.
> In all of that, one nice side effect is getting the size of the 
> chapter down by about 50%.
> I haven't finished, but I am interested to hear people's thoughts on 
> the idea.
> I've tossed an early draft of this to the AB, so they can consider it 
> in time to present it to the W3C members at the June AC meeting if 
> they choose to do so. Some time in the next couple of days I expect to 
> have a bit cleaner document that I don't mind being found in archives, 
> with clear disclaimers to reduce excuses for confusion, plus fewer 
> dodgy links, and making sure I don't breach a license somewhere. At 
> that point I'll happily make it generally available...
> If you want to see where I am up to in the meantime I'll happily email 
> you a copy.

I'd like to see what you have.

-Thanks, AB
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 13:27:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:08 UTC