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

Re: Draft Last Call letter for the revision of Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:39:32 -0400
Message-ID: <5265BB34.10705@w3.org>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 10/21/2013 6:20 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> ABers,
>
> Below is my draft letter to announce the Last Call of Chapter 7 of the 
> Process Document.
>

Looks great.  A couple of small edits inline.

> I have used Mike Champion's elevator pitch draft and inserted a couple 
> of paragraphs the provide context to what we are doing and why it is 
> only Chapter 7. I also appended several items from Jeff Jaffe's 
> original elevator pitch list to the end of Mike's second paragraph. 
> Finally, I have added a paragraph on where to send the comments. The 
> Goal is to send the Last Call this week so comments, if you have them 
> should come immediately.
>
> Steve Z
>
> ===============Last Call Letter====================================
>
> The Advisory Board proposes  revisions to Chapter 7 (Technical Report 
> Development Process) of the W3C Process to make it simpler to 
> understand, crisper to execute, yet still consistent with the patent 
> policy, by enabling process steps to happen in parallel.
>
> Almost two years ago, the Advisory Board began a
>

s/a//

> looking for ways to make specification development more agile within 
> the W3C. Both in fora, such as TPAC [1], and via e-mail and member 
> surveys a number of potential topics were identified [2] and 
> prioritized [3]. A number of the prioritized issues could be (and are 
> being) addressed without changes to the W3C Process.
>
> Following the May 2013 AC Meeting, the comments on the prioritized 
> issues were considered and areas where changes to the W3C Process were 
> needed to make improvements were identified. In discussing these 
> topics, the Advisory Board (which is responsible for the W3C Process) 
> realized [4] that some of the major issues related to agility were in 
> the area of the interactions between Last Call, Candidate 
> Recommendation and Proposed Recommendation. Because these are 
> completely specified in Chapter 7 of the current W3C Process, the 
> Advisory Board, temporarily, shifted its focus from a broad set of 
> Procress
>

s/Procress/Process/

> changes to providing a modified Chapter 7 which is being sent to you 
> as a Last Call Document prior to Review by the Advisory Committee and 
> adoption. The remaining process issues (those not directly related to 
> Chapter 7) have been tabled until a future revision of the W3C Process.
>
> The way web technologies are developed and deployed has changed 
> greatly over the past 20 years, and the AB is proposing  evolutionary 
> changes to the W3C Process to stay in step.  Just as "agile" software 
> development stresses rapid iteration between design and 
> implementation, Web technologies are now implemented and deployed in 
> parallel with spec development. This allows us to combine the Last 
> Call and Candidate Recommendation steps since implementation and 
> testing are more frequently happening earlier than was common when the 
> W3C Process  was formulated. Furthermore the recent emphasis on early 
> and continuous testing, plus the reality that almost all WGs operate 
> in public, means that specs can be widely reviewed in parallel with 
> their polishing and testing. Having fewer process steps while making 
> the entrance and exit criteria more clear and explicit should make the 
> process simpler to understand and follow; encouraging  refinement and 
> review activities to happen in parallel should make standardization 
> faster; and maintaining alignment with the Patent Policy minimizes 
> potential disruption. In addition to combining LC and CR, the 
> specifications of "widely reviewed" and "implementation experience" 
> have been clarified and
>
> non-normative "advice" has been remove to provide a crisper exposition 
> of the Process.
>
> Comments and requests for clarification are requested. The Advisory 
> Board has agreed to do its Process work in public and uses the 
> public-w3process@w3.org <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> mailing list 
> for this purpose so that is the best place to send comments and questions.
>
> Jeff Jaffe, Chair, W3C Advisory Board
>
> Charles McCathie-Nevile, Editor, W3C Process Document
>
> Steve Zilles, Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force
>
> [1] There were a number of relevant break-out sessions at TPAC 2011:
>
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/Agile_Standardization
>
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/Revisiting_how_W3C_creates_standards
>
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/Fixing_schedule_delays
>
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/W3C_Publications_Ecosystem
>
>       and at TPAC 2012:
>
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/agile_W3C_Process_Agility
>
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/session-tr
>
> http://www.w3.org/2012/10/31-testing-minutes.html
>
> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Mar/att-0007/AB_List_of_Concerns-20120306.htm
>
> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2012AprJun/0024.html
>
> [4] 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2012OctDec/0053.html, 
> Day 2, item 4.
>
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 23:39:41 UTC

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