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

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

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:27:03 +0000
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "Advisory Board" <ab@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <cdc63444dc22438ab2603947a7a52057@BN1PR03MB170.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I'm proposing the next recharter or charter extension as the forcing function to move to the new process. That might be too draconian for some groups or specs, but the Director/team can use discretion in such cases.

> It becomes too confusing to start all over again. 
I'm still not understanding this point.  The new process eliminates steps, it doesn't force anyone to "start all over again".  
What's the scenario you're concerned about?

To be clear, I'm not objecting to Ralph's proposal, I just think it's a bit more complicated than we really need.  But if others are happy with it let's adopt it and move on.

________________________________________
From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 4:36 PM
To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); Ralph Swick; Advisory Board; W3C Process Community Group
Subject: RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process  [W3Process-ISSUE-39,  W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal]

Mike,
One concern I have with your proposal (and Ralph's too, I believe) is that for "Supergroups" there is no forcing function to move specs to the new process. The CSS working group (I hate to say this) has some specifications that date back to 2006. That means that without a forcing function we could still have two processes seven years after the change.

I like your goal of simplicity, but there are two things in Ralph's proposal that seem to me to be useful. One is that specs that are largely done be completed under the old process; that is, the WG does not have the choice to make the change. It becomes too confusing to start all over again. The other is that there should be some public notice of the change of process for existing document. This seems to me to be a useful requirement.

Steve Z.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 1:43 PM
To: Ralph Swick; Advisory Board; W3C Process Community Group
Subject: RE: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal]

Maybe I'm missing some devils lurking in the details, but I would have thought the policy would be simpler, something like:

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 in AC review or existing WGs
   whose charters (including rechartering and extension) are about to be approved by the Director MUST follow
   the new [2014] TR Process.

3. Any existing Working Group MAY decide to follow the new TR Process
   for any Recommendation Track documents.

In short, WGs MAY choose the new process any time after it's made official, new/rechartered WGs MUST use the new process.  As always, the Director can grant dispensation for special cases where moving to the new system would be inconvenient/inefficient, we don't need to think through them all.

> 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.
If we have crafted a good change to the process document, it's hard for me to imagine why WGs would choose to inflict both LC and CR steps on themselves.  LC is more or less just a busywork step that really doesn't mean "last chance to comment" or "the spec is stable and ready to implement."  If any WGs tell us during the review period that they want to stick with the old process, I would take that as evidence we've done something wrong.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Swick [mailto:swick@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 5:55 AM
To: Advisory Board; W3C Process Community Group
Subject: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal]

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 Tuesday, 15 October 2013 03:27:40 UTC

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