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

Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal]

From: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:55:12 -0400
Message-ID: <525BE9B0.6030006@w3.org>
To: Advisory Board <ab@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Re: ISSUE-39: Managing the transition to a new TR cycle

Should the W3C Advisory Committee approve a new Technical Report
Development Process the Director will need to state the manner and
schedule for deployment of the revised Process.

As a stake in the ground for discussion, I propose the following:

As of the Director's announcement of the approval of a new Technical
Report Development Process:

1. All Technical Reports published after the adoption of a revised
   TR Development Process will state in the Status of This Document
   whether they were developed under the 2005 Process or under the
   new [2014] Process.

2. All new Working Groups whose charters are either in AC review or
   whose charters are about to be approved by the Director will follow
   the new [2014] TR Process.

3. Any existing Working Group whose charter is revised ("rechartered")
   other than extending the end date will follow the new TR Process
   for any Recommendation Track documents that are added to the charter.

4. Any Working Group with Recommendation Track documents previously
   published as Last Call Working Drafts or that are within 4 months of
   expected publication as Last Call Working Drafts will follow the
   2005 Process for those documents.

5. A Working Group whose charter was approved prior to the adoption of
   the new TR Process may choose either the 2005 TR Process or the new
   [2014] TR Process for Recommendation Track deliverables not yet
   published as Working Drafts or with a Last Call Working Draft
   scheduled to be published more than 4 months after the approval of
   a new TR Process.  Before making a decision the Working Group
   should formally open an issue on this question for each affected
   document and allow comment from outside the Working Group.  The
   normal issue review process -- including report to the Director at
   transition points -- must be followed for this issue.

Rationale: Given the sorts of Process changes proposed in the current
draft I believe that it will be only slightly more confusing to have
Recommendation Track documents from a single Group proceed under
different Processes than were those same documents to be produced by
different Groups.   The Group should be entitled to choose which process
to follow, however; the Group and the community to whom the Group is
addressing its work may have a preference based on the relationship
between the various documents produced by that Group.

I do not think that Recommendation track documents that are close to
Last Call under the current [2005] Process should be moved to a
different Process. "Close to" is a judgement call but 4 months feels
about right to me as a starting point for consideration.

-Ralph
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 12:55:25 UTC

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