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

Re: Trimming the Rec Track Process? - typo

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:37:00 -0700
Message-ID: <519C2F4C.5070404@linux.intel.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
patent policy requires 150 days for FPWD exclusions, I'd typed 120 - 
fixed that below.  So I think that could be the minimum time for 
creating a REC if you started with a well worked out draft, with tests 
and oimplementation: 150 days if the necessary checking and handling 
comments was done during that time.

On 5/21/2013 6:28 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
> I think the where we differ is I think it's fine to skip Candidate Rec 
> altogether if it wasn't needed, so no need to call each Last Call a 
> Candidate Rec.  Candidate Rec would instead serve as something stable 
> when it was going to take a long time to fulfill the formal testing 
> requirements, like in html5 and css now.  So, other specs have 
> something they're allowed to point to both inside and outside W3C.
>
>
> On 5/21/2013 3:01 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:06:25 +0400, Wayne Carr 
>> <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (Comments without having seen it.)
>>>
>>> There are a set of needs satisfied one way or the other by these 
>>> stages.
>>
>> I presume you mean the existing stages in chapter 7 - FPWD, WD, LC, 
>> CR, PR, REC ...
>
> Actually, I meant with either those or what you described as your 
> changes.  But what I was trying to do was step back and list 4 
> requirements that I think any set of stages and reviews should support 
> in some way.
>>
>>> 1. add to licensing obligations to those first generated at FPWD. So 
>>> need this after last change that could increase essential claims.  
>>> (defined in patent policy as Last Call so stuck with something that 
>>> implements last call exclusion period)
>>
>> Yes, unless we change the patent policy (which is not impossible but 
>> any reform predicated on doing it is "courageous, minister").
> Right, no need to go there.
>>
>>> 2. need a stable reference other orgs feel comfortable pointing to 
>>> in their specs.  If we're in a situation where Recommendation takes 
>>> an eternity because we're waiting for test code and implementations, 
>>> it can't be REC. So maybe not implemented or tested, but high level 
>>> of confidence.
>>
>> If it hasn't been implemented and tested, I don't have a very high 
>> level of confidence that it won't need changes. If it *has*, I have a 
>> reasonable level of confidence that although it probably has nasty 
>> bugs, for some set of use cases it does the job.
>
> Yes, but isn't it pretty common that implementation gets done pretty 
> early these days (for at least some features).  like html 5.0 
> implementation - is most of that waiting for CR or REC?   A CR can be 
> pretty stable and useful for other orgs (and for W3C to be able to 
> reference where they need to in other specs).  Candidate Rec seems to 
> be taking that role now.
>>
>>> 3. need AC to approve something considered as some sort of W3C spec 
>>> (and the W3C Director/Staff to weigh in too)
>>
>> For me the point of AC approval, reflected by the director and staff, 
>> is a pretty strong consensus that we think this is really a good 
>> idea. People might not back up their words with actions, or might 
>> even give the lie by their actions, but the statement of making 
>> something a Recommendation means something to the outside world, and 
>> they are prepared to use that back on people who don't seem to mean it.
>>
>>> 4. need a rock solid, it's been implemented and tested final spec 
>>> (for those who need to know what has been thoroughly tested in 
>>> multiple implementations)
>>
>> We need a kind of spec that is stable to the extent of "we know that 
>> this spec (possibly within these known limitations) solves these use 
>> cases".
> yes, I'm not trying to argue one way or the other on the living spec 
> argument.  Just saying that for some uses we need a version people 
> agree is done.  Like taking it to ISO IEC JTC1. Implementers/content 
> creators have moved on by the time this is done, but that doesn't make 
> it not worth doing - it likely isn't going away.
>
>>
>>> Sure, Last Call doesn't need to be an independent stage.  It just 
>>> needs to happen before the AC approval (so they know what they're 
>>> approving).
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> I'm not sure how Candidate Rec can serve as that sort of stable spec 
>>> it it happens before the Last Call exclusion period or before the AC 
>>> review.
>>
>> But if it happens as part of the same stage, as I propose, we get
>> + the Working group committing to their spec (you can go back, but it 
>> is a PITA so you try to avoid that - by getting enough review and 
>> pre-testing).
>> + broad public review, if we're lucky. This matters, because the real 
>> test of a spec isn't whether the members of the WG get it right, but 
>> whether someone who doesn't even speak the language the WG worked in 
>> will get it right if they implement. Having Jill random offer his 
>> experience of this is a useful, but not definitive, confirmation that 
>> we were looking in roughly the right part of the forest.
>
> But then the thing called Candidate Rec doesn't have the properties 
> that it has been approved by the AC and has already been through Last 
> Call.  It could fail either one.  e.g. at Last Call someone discloses 
> and excludes some essential claim.  So you wind up with a very useful 
> stage that has no name - all those reviews past and WG thinks it's 
> done.  And instead you have a review period with a fancy name.  It 
> could be Candidate Review and turn into a Candidate Rec when it was 
> done and then I think it does what each of us wants. But, i wouldn't 
> make it mandatory in any case.  Just an option for WGs that want to do 
> it -- like they think tests are going to take a long time.
>>
>>> So I'd suggest:
>>>
>>> Stages:
>>>
>>> Candidate Rec - experimental spec status (need last call after last 
>>> substantive change, need AC approval, doesn't have multiple 
>>> implementations or testing)
>>
>> If it happens to have implementations and testing, great. Can we get 
>> outsiders to do the same and confirm? If we happen to have done that, 
>> we know that there is about a 2 month wait for Recommendation, which 
>> is a cheap delay for good patent commitments. (Broader implementation 
>> *generally* implies broad participation in the WG, and therefore good 
>> patent coverage. )
>
> If it was a 2 month delay, I'd suggest skipping Candidate Rec 
> altogether.   But, it can be years and a huge amount of money needed 
> for testing.
>
>>
>>> Recommendation - final, tested spec status (W3C staff determines, if 
>>> any controversy, needs AC approval)
>>>
>>> Reviews:
>>>
>>> "FPWD" and "Last Call" patent exclusion periods  - Last Call can 
>>> repeat - must happen after last substantive change and before 
>>> Candidate Rec
>>
>> My proposal is that last call and candidate rec are the same step.
>
> I was separating out a process (reviews) from a permanent state, 
> Candidate Rec document (that has passed);
>>
>>> "AC Review" - after last Call and before Candidate Rec.  If any 
>>> issues after Candidate Rec meets all criteria to advance to Rec, 
>>> another AC review if AC asks for it.
>>
>> I suggest one review (in an ideal world) starting when LC/CR starts, 
>> and running for four weeks after the WG shows the CR criteria are met 
>> (which takes a minimum of 5 weeks - all this time, the patent 
>> exclusion clock is running anyway so I don't think we can speed that 
>> up without a change to the patent policy).
>
> That's good if no one excludes any patents and no one makes any 
> comments the AC should consider.  Last Call exclusion period is 60 
> days.  I'm not seeing a time requirement for how long CR has to take.
>
>>> Can do FPWD -> Last Call -> AC Review -> REC  (skipping Candidate 
>>> Rec if met all the criteria).
>>
>> Right. Which is what happens now for the theoretical problem-free spec.
>
> I mean above to skip the Candidate Rec stage.  We can change those 
> rules.  We don't have to have it if it isn't needed for a spec.
>
> This may be just semantics, but I'd have
>
> FPWD (150 days exclusion - because patent policy says so).
>
> Last Call (60 days - because the patent policy says so)
>
> Requirement for AC review after the end of substantive changes (if 
> there are further changes, some number of AC reps cab call for another 
> AC review).
>
> Recommendation
> - with list of requirements like: WG agreement to publish; draft 
> passed fpwd/last call without unresolved licensing issues (after last 
> substantive change); WG addressed review comments; formal objections 
> considered; passed AC review as determined by Director; number of 
> implementations required by Charter; testing as required by Charter.  
> (no requirement to have published Candidate Rec - Last Call serves as 
> notice to seriously review).
>
> Candidate Recommendation: Same as Recommendation except for weaker 
> implementation/testing requirements (so has had patent exclusion 
> review, ac review, etc.  Those alternative interoperability 
> requirements are: features without the number of implementations 
> required in the Charter marked as "at risk", not the same level of 
> proof of interoperability, but looks OK.  Charter can set proof 
> requirements for CR.
>
> For a draft say developed in a CG that didn't need work in the WG, the 
> minimal time would be:
> FPWD - 150 days for exclusion period
> AC Review 4 weeks (could do that at same time as end of exclusion 
> period, but cancelled if patent issue arises until after resolved).
> Time for W3C staff to make sure everything satisfied - up to 4 weeks - 
> could overlap exclusion period.
> So minimum time a little more than 150 days. (last call appears to be 
> required only if the draft changed later than 90 days after start of 
> FPWD).
>
> All the stages would be:
>
> FPWD - 150 days
> Last Call - if changes since FPWD - 60 days - repeat is substantive 
> change
> AC review - 4 weeks (repeats if substantive changes or issues raised 
> and AC asks for review)
> Optional Candidate Rec - if WG wants to - typically for extra time to 
> implement, create tests, etc.
> Rec
>
>>
>> The point of collapsing LC and CR is that one is important (triggers 
>> patent exclusion period) but has very low bar to entry. The other 
>> triggers a level of review based on the fact that it has a hig 
>> barrier to entry (but almost no other objective criterion).
>
> Collapsing them is fine.  But then why not collapse it by not calling 
> it a Candidate Spec until it passes that review.
>
>>
>> IMHO. Simplifying because where I am it is 0130...
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>> On 5/21/2013 6:26 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>> 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 
>>>>> not… 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 Wednesday, 22 May 2013 02:37:42 UTC

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